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.
81 Comments for “Countering Fundamentalisms”
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Religion has been used to support and maintain some of our most barbaric and unworkable institutions here in America. That contradict the tenets of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which they too invoke as rationalization for the imposition of religious practice in government.
I think the third option is something to fight back with as well. One could point to most religious texts as written and influenced by MEN, who impose too, strict rules that govern GENDER, not morals especially.
I would go about tackling that first. The male centric perspective of religion and how it forces women and homosexuals into binary functions of gender that don’t exist in nature, are at the root of the problem.
A person is their GENDER only physically, but in all other manners how is that at the expense of morality? Or contributions of merit to be made to society?
What fundamentalists reveal is their discomfort with INDIVIDUAL ability, and a firm belief in the inferiority of women. And a belief also in the inferiority of those who do not have biological children.
As many here know, one of the guiding principles of bans on marriage for gay couples is the procreation argument.
And we know that by law, this is not a requisite to BE married, nor does it come at the expense of those who DO plan to raise children.
Were I to make a Solomonic judgement, as we charge SCOTUS to do sometimes, my ruling would come based on what our marriage laws ACTUALLY entail, with the firm acknowlegement that it doesn’t come at the expense of other’s freedoms to do the same.
I agree, that fundamentalist doctrine IS for achieving power and manipulating whole populations.
Even when I remind the staunchest Christian of their obligation to the fundamental directive of treating a neighbor as you’d want to be treated, they tend to retreat from that exclusively in context to how gay people should be treated.
I remind them that this directive was invoked because decisions of morals and ethics can be reached from that principle.
Mostly, that is, to treat gay people as equals, THEN judge the results and NOT BEFORE.
Albert Einstein once said that the problems of the day can’t be solved by the consciousness that created them.
And this is a case in point that what he said is true.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal suggests protesting at upcoming U.S. appearances by the Pope. Would that be helpful?
That would be foolish on two counts. First off, whatever you might say about the Catholics, they are not fundamentalists. Second, picketing the pope will generate more hostility than support.
If gays want to go after the fundamentalists, it’s the evangelical protestants who must be targeted. And frankly, I think mockery would be a whole lot more effective than straight-ahead protest.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
If the Roman church is not fundamentalist, it is authoritarian and (under Benedict XVI) medievalist. They have more sophisticated theology than the fundies, which perhaps makes them more dangerous.
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. But the only way that would happen would be by some sort of stunt at a subsequent ballgame. Another thing that can be done is for other gay groups to honor their local Dignity chapters during the Pope’s visit.
posted by Karen on
A month before my wedding, my fundamentalist aunt took it upon herself to try to talk me out of it.
(God has revealed to her that the man He made to be my husband is about 5’7″, blond, and very lonely right now since I won’t obey God’s will and find and marry him.)
I emailed back and forth with her for about a week. We discussed my religion and hers, and how they differ. We discussed Jesus and what he would think about my relationship. Above all, we discussed language, translation, and what was REALLY being conveyed in those oft-quoted Pauline epistles.
She loves me very much and I know that she only does this because she cares about me. She likes my wife and would even have come to the wedding had my grandmother not taken ill.
But nothing in that conversation gave me any hope that she could ever understand where I was coming from, in terms of the supposed immorality of our relationship.
Her worldview is sealed. There is no truth but the one she thinks she already has. Anything that goes against it or questions it is of Satan. Any reliance upon our own moral intuition is sinful.
Maybe someday the cognitive dissonance between what her leaders present to her as a “gay lifestyle” and what my life is actually like will cause her to rethink her trust in her leaders.
I’m not holding my breath. That’s a change that will have to come from within her. I don’t believe there’s anything we can do to reach those already so firmly entrenched in fundamentalism.
I also think there’s very little we can do to combat the spread of it except keep being visible and countering the lies, and keep harping on the progressive values of liberty, democracy, and secular government that are the only thing standing between us and tyranny.
The consolation? We probably can’t actually lose, in the long run. “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Fundamentalism is a sure long-term loser, in the marketplace of ideas.
posted by Amicus on
Most of the elements of an quasi-institutionalized approach are in place.
There are some thought leaders, but they are (mostly) divorced from the main political groups (who are not coordinated themselves, for good or bad).
There is significant legal talent, but it is divorced from those who know how to use issue-ad money (like Tim Gil’s group), pulling a legal strategy into a broader context.
The HRC has worked with Gene Robinson, reportedly, to formulate an outreach/dialogue program; but it’s not designed for the page-one type of “rebuttal”.
Misuse of the Bible about gays is like a “defamation”. How much the anti-defamation folks are geared up along lines other than #1 above is a question I cannot answer.
posted by Ben on
Well, I like the second option. For gay Christians, it’s really the only option. The problem is not with scripture, or even scriptural inerrancy, but the misinterpretation of scripture. These so-called ‘fundamentalists’ refuse to apply any sort of academic analysis to scripture. They take at face-value in modern context, in English, what was originally written in Hebrew and Greek a few thousand years ago. They refuse to understand, that while we Christians believe that scripture is inspired by God, still, pen was put to paper by errant man, in a specific time, in a specific place. If any of you have not yet seen “For The Bible Tells Me So”, I would really recommend it. One of my favorite quotes from it was when one theologian remarks that “A third-grade understanding of God is only acceptable when you are in the third grade.”
I think that if we continue to work within the church, we can all come to a better understanding of each other and what God’s will really is.
posted by Zachary Booth on
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Wilson; the Catholic Church at large does not bear anything resembling the animus for gays and lesbians that many evangelical Protestant denominations do. My parents’ priest devotes quite a bit of his homily time to enjoining parishioners to respect the dignity of homosexuals and to embrace us with love, much like Jesus himself would have done. If we can more firmly entrench this mentality in all Christians, part of our fight will become much easier.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You are acting, Zachary, as though what Varnell is proposing is based in some sort of rationality.
It’s not; it’s simply antireligious bigotry with a rather transparent attempt to put a pleasing veneer on it.
People have eyes. They see what “being gay” is all about when they watch Pride parades. They know what “employment discrimination laws” are all about. They know that gays blame them for crimes they had nothing to do with, and they know what gays think is appropriate to teach children. They know that gays scream that people who oppose gay marriage and support amendments to ban it are homophobic and evil, but that gays pump tens of millions of dollars to candidates who support exactly that, even to a candidate who supported banning gay marriage in Massachusetts, and call them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” — all because of political affiliation.
But, instead of actually dealing with the problems over which they have far more control and influence — namely, these unacceptable and anachronistic behaviors, barbarities, and contradictions that are excused on the basis of being gay — Varnell and Rosendall decide they’re going to attack the Bible, Catholics, and the religious, all of which enjoy far broader and more bipartisan support.
Karen is the most right; normalization will come about most effectively by people learning about us and how drably normal we are at their own pace and their own speed. But the reason it has taken so long already is because we have allowed ourselves to be co-opted for innumerable other causes that have nothing to do with being gay — and this attempt by Varnell and Rosendall to co-opt us for their own wars on religious belief will at best slow that process down. At worst, it will force the gay community to fracture, with those of us who do not have their obvious irrational hatred of Christianity forcing them and their fellow leftists to stop abusing our sexual orientation for their inane purposes.
posted by The Gay Species on
The simple fact is that Calvin’s dictum, “the Bible is the literal and inerrant Word of God, which is alone sufficient for salvation,” is self-refuting. The Bible makes no such claim, so Calvin’s dictum is “outside” the Bible. Indeed, the Bible insists that “the CHURCH of the living God is the groundwork and pillar of THE TRUTH” (1 Tm 3:15).
Every fundamentalist to whom I’ve raised these two insights quickly abandons fundamentalism. Once history teaches us that Christianity was moribund in the 15th century, the Church debauched, and humanism dominant, one understands why marginally literate Reformers had to change the historical and ontological basic of processionism to the Bible.
Historically, The Son proceeds from the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, the Apostles proceed from their Commission, the Bishops proceed from the Apostles by apostolic succession, and out of that succession arose “inspired writings” that did not reach canonical status until the 15th century’s Council of Trent.
But what does a 16th century monk and a Swiss layman know of such things? They get to claim precedence over processionism, on what authority? By what authority do they make self-refuting claims? To behold today’s fundamentalists, there is nothing “fundamental” about them. Their focused on TEXT, not the WORD.
As Catherine of Siena wrote before the Reformation, those who read the scriptures literally do so idolatrously, since the scriptures are inspired by the Spirit for our spiritual perfection.
But, Prophets for Profit need a “leader” to sell all their products, and finance $23 million toilets for Joel Osteen’s personal use.
posted by Mark on
ND30, I don’t see that criticizing the anti-gay theology of fundamentalist and Orthodox Christians is anti-religious bigotry. That’s just stupid. Richard is a Christian, if you didn’t know. Paul isn’t, but there is a difference between being a non-believer and promoting anti-religious bigotry. Has either gentlemen suggested that all Christians are immoral or that religion should be illegal?
I also fail to see why all gay writers are (apparantly) obligated to criticize other gay people each time they write anything.
Most gay people are already leading “normal” lives. Gay parades were boring 20 years ago as far as I’m concerned.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I am a Christian. My faith is built on the foundation of the words and actions of Jesus. I think the best source for those words and actions are the Gospels–I believe them to be reliable, not inerrant. Their only purpose is to point me to Jesus. So, my relationship with Jesus doesn’t require any books to be inerrant. The Old Testament helps me understand the context in which Jesus spoke, and the letters of Paul show me how one man applied the teachings of Jesus to his society. But Paul’s letters are only case studies which help me better see possible applications–they are not eternal laws.
The point is, faith in Jesus and belief in the Nicene Creed as a summary of necessary beliefs does not require inerrant Scripture. There is nothing in the Creed about sexual behavior, so any decision we reach can’t be essential to faith.
That being said, I haven’t found a church where I feel comfortable being openly gay. I don’t want a “special church for special people” like the Metropolitan Community Church–I want to be a part of an average, everyday congregation. I don’t know if I can avert my eyes to the problems of Roman Catholicism. I’m currently an Episcopalian, and I love the steps the Canadian church is taking, but, golly, I’m tired of everyone yelling at each other.
I also don’t relate to the gay mainstream. I am a faithful Christian who wants a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship. While many gays want the same thing, there is no visible, public means of support for traditional morality in the gay community. Please don’t say there is–there isn’t and you know it. I have been exploring various gay venues in Omaha, which would certainly be on the conservative side, and when I talk about lifelong, sexual exclusivity, I get the best of gay bitchiness pointed in my direction. Try it. Go to a gay gathering and say, “I’m looking for a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship,” and feel the warm embrace of acceptance which surrounds you. Please. Try it. I dare you.
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?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, everything you wrote about me is contradicted by the published record. Can you really believe that other readers will not notice?
posted by Jorge on
I take a dim view of people calling conservative Catholics fundamentalist (although fundamentalist Catholics do exist). When I was in Catholic school I was taught that you’re not supposed to take the Bible literally. The obvious example is the creation story, which is scientifically ridiculous. There is no such thing as water in a sky bowl or a snake that talks and so on. Hasn’t stopped Catholicism from condemning homosexual relationships. In fact, I think rejecting literalism has made it easier!
I agree that religious rebuttals to religious opposition to homosexuality are underused. Personally I don’t see the sense of making a distinction between #s 1-3. Why should only secular arguments be made? Religion is a part of American culture. What I think should be pointed out is how certain ideas and politics are contrary to the spirit of Christianity and the founding documents of the United States, given what we know today about homosexuality.
Which is easy to say but then we have all this mudslinging about what IS the homosexuality? What DOES the US Constitution say about religion? Which is more important: fidelity to God or human life? So much of the “debate” is dishonest that it’s hard to tell which side’s right. You just have to go with the side that’s with you. Hey, people know what the stakes are. The answers to these questions decide everything.
Anyway, pointing out logical inconsistencies in the Bible falls short because educated conservative Christians have been aware of them for decades, and they still maintain conservative interpretations. I mean people haven’t dropped the Bible just because it talks about slavery–heck, African Americans are among the most religiously conservative people in the US. If that makes any sense whatsoever to you, then how are you going to succeed at driving people away from what the Bible “says” about gays through logical argument?
posted by Jorge on
Try it. Go to a gay gathering and say, “I’m looking for a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship,”
How about this? I want a lifelong, monogamous relationship and I will not have sex with my partner before marriage.
posted by Jim on
I am a very open-minded person. I mean this is many senses including “religion.” Actually, I prefer to consider myself to be “spiritual” and not religious as religion is nothing more than a set of dogma or rules and regulations one one usually “must” follow.
It seems that throughout history religion has been used by man (I mean that in the general term and in the gender term) to control others. Christianity is a patriarchial religion that belittles the females gender. Pastors, evangelists, and so forth today try to down play this by saying that we have to understand the time when the Bible was written.
Well, if the Bible is the word of God, then it shouldn’t matter the time it was written. If God really said those words then He should have told “man” that belittling women was wrong. It shouldn’t have taken a couple thousand more years and lots of protesting for women to have equal rights.
Personally, I believe the Bible was inspired by “God” but I believe God is a MUCH more open-minded entity than man has made him out to be in the Bible.
Man created the limitation on women to keep them in their place and to ensure that intelligent women or women that would think about speaking out were taken care of with a swiftness. This left only men to make decisions.
As for the ban on homosexualism, I believe this did have to do with the times. Way back then it was the goal of a man to propagate and create a family. Well, it seems like much propagation has been done and it’s not necessary to spread your seed all over the place anymore.
Finally, it seems that the goal of most religions are to control.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Once history teaches us that Christianity was moribund in the 15th century, the Church debauched, and humanism dominant, one understands why marginally literate Reformers had to change the historical and ontological basic of processionism to the Bible.
“Marginally literate”?
Are you even aware of the educational backgrounds and publications of Martin Luther and John Calvin?
Furthermore, The Gay Species, what these men were quite learned enough to recognize was that a great deal of the canon law based on “procession” was in fact based on forgery, as was seen with the Donation of Constantine and the other spurious Isidorian decretals.
ND30, I don’t see that criticizing the anti-gay theology of fundamentalist and Orthodox Christians is anti-religious bigotry. That’s just stupid.
Ah, but you see, Mark, Varnell is not criticizing JUST the anti-gay theology; he’s criticizing the theology, period, even in areas where it has nothing to do with gays. For example:
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,
What does any of that have to do with gays? Nothing. But Varnell still tries to criticize it as “antigay”.
And what makes Rosendall’s behavior hilarious and hypocritical is that he whines and screams about the Pope’s words, but then insists on making a public spectacle and namecalling himself. Personally, I think if Rosendall is allowed to publicly criticize and namecall the Pope as evil, the Pope should be allowed to return the favor to Rosendall and all the other gays he presumes to represent.
The point is, faith in Jesus and belief in the Nicene Creed as a summary of necessary beliefs does not require inerrant Scripture. There is nothing in the Creed about sexual behavior, so any decision we reach can’t be essential to faith.
There’s nothing in there about murder, adultery, and promiscuous sex, either; does that mean you can endorse all of those without damaging your faith, too?
I wish the gay community would admit that it’s public behavior has caused many of the problems it now has.
Amen. But why do that when it would make you less likely to get sex, as you pointed out, while bashing the Pope and Christians does the opposite?
I mean people haven’t dropped the Bible just because it talks about slavery
The Bible allows slavery in certain instances. But it also makes it clear that slaves are to be treated with respect and dignity, and the behaviors of Jesus, Paul, and the apostles mirrored that. The Bible levels, not by changing the social order or by changing the government, but by making it clear that all are sinners, Jesus died for all, and all can be saved.
Man created the limitation on women to keep them in their place and to ensure that intelligent women or women that would think about speaking out were taken care of with a swiftness.
Which is why, I suppose, the Bible speaks so highly of intelligent women, such as Ruth, Deborah, Rahab, Esther, Mary (Jesus’s mother), Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha, the Caananite woman, Priscilla, Tabitha, Lois, and Eunice.
Furthermore, you obviously are not familiar with the numerous other passages in Scripture that speak to this matter. Everyone likes to quote Ephesians 5:22(“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord”), but they always leave off the following verses:
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
Ephesians 5:25 – 28, NIV
Or this one:
In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God?s gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered.
1 Peter 3:7, NLT
Or:
The husband should fulfill his wife?s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband?s needs. The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife.
1 Corinthians 7: 3 – 4, NLT
Problem is that most gays haven’t really read the Bible; they simply pluck passages out and try to use them to justify their antireligious bigotry. Varnell and Rosendall are prime examples of this.
posted by Mark on
“Ah, but you see, Mark, Varnell is not criticizing JUST the anti-gay theology; he’s criticizing the theology, period, even in areas where it has nothing to do with gays.”
Yes, but he’s doing it to make a point that many religious people wish to IMPOSE their religious views on other people via the government, just like they wish to IMPOSE their views on gays.
I’ve read Paul’s article again, and I really find very little to disagree with.
“The Bible allows slavery in certain instances. But it also makes it clear that slaves are to be treated with respect and dignity…”
Oh please. Slavery is one of the greatest evils ever. You cannot treat slaves with respect and dignity while you own them. Please stop trying to rationalize or explain away the blatant immorality contained in the Bible.
posted by Charles Wilson on
I also don’t relate to the gay mainstream. I am a faithful Christian who wants a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship. While many gays want the same thing, there is no visible, public means of support for traditional morality in the gay community.
You perceive a “gay mainstream” in the bars and other events you attend. But look around. How many people do you see? Then use a really conservative estimate of gay people — 3% of the adult population, divided by two. That’s your fishing pond.
I used to live in a town of 90,000. My pond had 945 men in it. There was one gay bar in that town, and in the three years I lived in that town I don’t think I saw more than 75 different local men there.
To the extent that I hung out in that bar, I fished in 8% of the pond. I suspect that if you were to look closely at your pond, you’d see that it’s smaller than you think. Mainstream? I’m telling you, there is no gay mainstream. There are a million streams.
You say you want a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship. What are you doing to find it? Stop whining and start looking. I mean really looking.
I have been exploring various gay venues in Omaha, which would certainly be on the conservative side, and when I talk about lifelong, sexual exclusivity, I get the best of gay bitchiness pointed in my direction.
So you’re going to the bars, and a few other places where openly gay people hang out, and you’re mixing with other singles. Hey, do yourself a big favor: Play straight for a weekend, and hang out in some straight singles bars. Then report back to us on the bitterness quotient there.
It’s not about being gay, it’s about what pond you’re fishing in. I’m telling you: Fish in a different pond. After my partner of 18 years died in 2004, I found another partner. It took a while. I even went out to some bars. Twice. It was sad, funny, and scary to actually recognize some people after 20 years.
Go to a gay gathering and say, “I’m looking for a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship,” and feel the warm embrace of acceptance which surrounds you. Please. Try it. I dare you.
Depends on which gay gathering. That’s what I was looking for, and I found a bunch of support. I still remember what one friend told me. He said, widows and widowers who had a happy relationship tend to find another one fast, because they know what they’re looking for.
Guess what? My friend was right. Ashpenaz, there are two kinds of people in the world, and it doesn’t matter if they’re gay or straight. One kind of person talks about it, and the other kind of person just goes and does it.
It seems to me that you do a whole lot of talking these days. You can be forgiven for that. When I was young, I talked more than I did too. Then I got wise. You will too.
On the other hand, you can join the santimonious whiners club. You’ll be welcomed with open arms, because misery always loves company. But remember this: Miserable people rarely love each other. Or anyone else, for that matter. Fish in a different pond.
posted by Ashpenaz on
In which pond, exactly, do gays who want lifelong, sexually exclusive relationshps get to swim? We’ve been chased out of the gay bars and Pride parades, and the churches haven’t quite found that red carpet to welcome us in yet.
My strategy is this: When I find a guy who is attractive or interesting, who is over 30, and not wearing a wedding ring, I strike up an acquaintance and see if he sends off any recognizable signals indicating similar interest on his part. My success rate thus far? Absolute zero. I’ve never met a gay man this way in the course of my normal life. The only gay men I’ve met have been through theater or gay venues–many of whom have been fun, but none of them my type. Of the men who are my type and who are over 30 and unmarried, none have been gay. Or I am extremely unattractive.
I would love to find another pond in which to fish. A joke about my pole being baited and ready seems rather unnecessary, but there you go.
posted by Ben on
“Please stop trying to rationalize or explain away the blatant immorality contained in the Bible.”
Mark, I understand why you might think like that, but I also think that you cannot see the forest for all of the trees.
I’ve had as many anti-religious people (I like to call them evangelical atheists) as I’ve had regular evangelicals tell me that because I’m gay that I cannot be a Christian, that the two are mutually exclusive. I’ve had both groups point to the same scriptures to prove this. But the mistake they always make is context. They always forget that scripture is a temporal thing, written by real people with real biases in a real place in a real time. Outside of that context, it will not make much sense. Indeed, I did not become a Christian until that point was made to me, then things started making sense.
I get upset with my fellow Christians when they call the Bible the ‘Word of God’. At the beginning of the Gospel of John, it is made evident that Jesus is the Word of God. Calling the Bible the Word of God is what has led to this problem with ‘scriptural inerrancy’, and I see many Christians who idol-worship the Bible instead of God.
You don’t have to be a Christian to quote scripture, and use it to hurt people. I refuse to believe what both evangelicals tell me, that God hates me, and what the atheists tell me, that I should hate him back. I don’t need to have studied scripture to know that’s a lie.
posted by Charles Wilson on
In which pond, exactly, do gays who want lifelong, sexually exclusive relationshps get to swim? We’ve been chased out of the gay bars and Pride parades, and the churches haven’t quite found that red carpet to welcome us in yet.
Chased out of gay bars, you say? Then you’re not looking very hard. I found my first partner of 18 years — who would have been my only partner, but for his death — in a bar. I found my second partner on an Internet match site.
No one is being “chased” out of anywhere. Look, guy, it’s a free world. You want to find someone for life? I suggest talking about it less, and doing it more. You make your own luck. I’m not trying to tell you this is easy. But if I could have done it at the age of 48, then you can do it too.
Look, I went to undergrad school in uber-tolerant Madison, WI back in the 1970s. At the time, it was one of only two cities in the U.S. (the other being Seattle) to reject those anti-gay referendums that the Anita Bryant crowd was pushing. I remember telling myself, at the age of 20, that I could either do the oppressed minority woe-is-me thing, or I could get real and make a life.
I say the same thing to you. If you want to blame other people for your frustrations you’ll find plenty of company, but you won’t overcome your frustrations. That can only happen the old fashioned way, by facing facts with honesty and courage.
Other people have done it, and so can you. I’m telling you, Ashpenaz, you’re at a crossroads. There is always someone or something to keep us from taking an uncomfortable look in the mirror. Time for you to choose.
I have met longstanding gay couples all over the place. I’ve known people in little towns who’ve been together for ages. Here in Seattle, two guys down the street from me just celebrated their 20th anniversary. Don’t sit there and whine that it can’t happen.
The Marine Corps, of all groups, has a slogan that applies here, and in many other places: Can’t Means Won’t. Think about it!
posted by Charles Wilson on
Ashpenaz, not only did I find my first partner in a gay bar, but I found him in the nastiest gay bar in Los Angeles, a place called “The One Way.” It featured all of the behaviors you are ranting and raving about. He was standing under a light, looking about as comfortable as a wet duck. Aha, I said, now there’s a guy I want to talk to. The rest is history.
These days, the bars are a lot less important in relative terms. Much more is happening on Internet sites. The same craziness as the bars, for sure. But a whole lot of that craziness is skin deep. As an old song goes, If you wish to see beneath the surface/You must adjust your altitude
posted by Charles Wilson on
I know I’ve rattled on, but something else comes to mind. For all the challenges and attacks, gay Americans live in an incredibly free moment. You’re a good deal younger than I am, and you probably don’t know the pressures I did. And I didn’t know the pressures that people 20 years younger than me knew.
The funny thing about freedom is that it doesn’t leave you anyplace to hide. When you can do what you want, then you’ve got to figure out what that “what” is. The fact is this, Ashpenaz: No one has any power over you.
No one’s “pushing” you out of any bars or off of an websites. You’re trying to impose your model on the world, and one of these days you’ll wake up and realize that the world really doesn’t care. Indifference is the flip side of freedom, and that’s one of the toughest realities you’ll ever face.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Wow–you’ve managed to say to me everything I’ve wanted to shout out at Pride parades! I wish you could be as straightforward with your advice to someone who was swinging a 3-foot foam penis in your face while singing We Are Family and throwing out free condoms. If I’m not a victim, then they’re not victims, either. I think the gay community would be much happier if they realized the world’s indifference. In fact, I wish the gay community would cultivate the world’s indifference–it would be so much nicer for everyone.
I agree with you–I think that my cynicism prevents me from trying too hard. Still, I’ve met a lot of great, attractive guys–how is it possible that none, not one, nil, nix, nada of them have been gay? Should I have tapped my foot more?
posted by Charles Wilson on
Wait a second. If you don’t like what you see at a gay pride parade, then why do you attend? I went to one of them, and that was enough. The differencce between you and me is that I went and did my own thing, and have never worried about it.
See, here’s the deal: No one’s your boss, and you’re no one’s boss. How hard is that to understand? If you don’t want a 3-foot foam dildo in your face, then stay away from places where you’ll have that happen. America is a big country, and you can get away from 3-foot foam dildoes if you really want to.
You’ve met a lot of attractive guys, but none of them have been gay. Could it be that you are carrying a much bigger chip on your shoulder than you know? Or could it be that you’re confusing surfaces with interiors?
By the latter comment, I mean that those nice straight guys you meet are showing you their public face. In private, they’re just as gooey and smarmy as anyone else. Oh, and when two guys have a relationship, the dynamics are going to be different from start to finish. Hate to disappoint you, but it’s not going to be like a beer commercial.
As for the gay community and the world’s indifference, that’s a very mixed bag. The gay community is a little bit like the Jewish community but without Israel to complicate matters. As long as there’s antisemitism, the Jewish community sticks together. Let there be sustained tolerance morphing into acceptance, and things relax toward what we see today, complete with a 50% intermarriage rate that drives rabbis crazy. (By the way, I’m not Jewish, but have had a bunch of Jewish friends over the years.)
I’m happy to take full advantage of the world’s indifference, and to cultivate it. If that’s what you’re really seeking, find yourself a job in Seattle and live here. The census numbers show this city to be just behind S.F. in the percentage of gay households, and by and large it is no big deal.
I’m not the Seattle chamber of commerce. There are problems here, too, just as there are problems in any city. But if you’re genuinely looking for a place where gay people just blend in without a lot of drama, this is the place.
My real question is whether you’re equipped to deal with freedom, because while no one here (or most other places, I’d argue) is going to tell you what to do or how to be, they’re also not going to be very interested in you telling them what to do or how to be. Freedom’s a real bitch that way.
posted by Charles Wilson on
One of the surprises to me along the way has been the level of understanding and sympathy among straight people. I look at the stuff you write about gay people and I see a level of brittle intolerance and fear that goes beyond what I see from most straights.
It’s understandable, but someone needs to tell you to relax and have a laugh at the passing parade. Including the gay pride parade, if you can bear it. If not, then go the Shriners parade and drive a miniature golf cart with the old farts for all I care.
Ashpenaz, let me put it this way: It’s not going to rub off on you. At least not if you’re confident in what and who you are. The people who’ll hate all gay people because someone carried a 3-foot foam dildo in a gay pride march are going to hate all gay people no matter what. No amount of “mainstream” behavior will change their point of view.
I’m older than you are, and I’m here to tell you that the “reasons” to hate gay people are endless, and endlessly contradictory. We are too flamboyant. We are too closeted, and therefore furtive and devious. We’re dishonest about our sexuality, and therefore ourselves. Or we flaunt our sexuality. If we like kids, we’re cryto-molesters. If we don’t like kids, then we’re bitter, anti-family homosexuals.
If we’re male, we’re too masculine as a form of overcompensation. Or we’re too feminine. We hate women, or we like them too much. The list goes on and on and on. Here’s one you might not know about. In the 1970s, the military actually looked for single personnel past a certain age who did their jobs too well and whose records were too good. That’s a trait of a closeted homosexual.
I really think you ought to reconsider this obsession with the “mainstream.” Instead, just be who you are and let other people be who they are. And grow a sense of humor, so you don’t die of a heart attack before you find the dream man of your life.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh please. Slavery is one of the greatest evils ever. You cannot treat slaves with respect and dignity while you own them. Please stop trying to rationalize or explain away the blatant immorality contained in the Bible.
Uh huh. Oddly enough, I don’t see you also repudiating the whole of classical Greek, Roman, and Egyptian learning, culture, and writings as “blatantly immoral” because all of them kept slaves and because numerous of their writings endorse slavery.
Furthermore, Mark, obviously you’ve not seen Folsom; master/slave activity is alive, well, and openly endorsed by the gay community. It is hilarious to watch lefty gays who lead people around on leashes, refer to them as “boy” and “slave” and order them to lick their boots, and who put dog collars on their children to “show off” at the sex fair scream that the Bible is “immoral”.
Yes, but he’s doing it to make a point that many religious people wish to IMPOSE their religious views on other people via the government, just like they wish to IMPOSE their views on gays.
Uh huh. Funny, neither you or he seems to be upset by those folks who push for abortion on demand, unlimited stem cell experimentation, mandatory HPV vaccinations, and whatnot “trying to impose their views on other people via the government”.
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.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
I agree with ND30 that most slaves were happy to be in their position and that they should be happy that they ended up in the USA and not stuck in Africa. I also agree with ND30 that there are no conservative S&M/leather proponents and that ALL sexual perversity is the result of leftist sentiment. I would also wish to applaud ND30 for having the balls to stick up for the poor down-trodden American Christian (a class of people who have been sorely mistreated by both history and American jurisprudence). Bravo ND30! You are truly a great American thinker and patriot!!
posted by Charles Wilson on
Mark, obviously you’ve not seen Folsom; master/slave activity is alive, well, and openly endorsed by the gay community. It is hilarious to watch lefty gays who lead people around on leashes, refer to them as “boy” and “slave” and order them to lick their boots, and who put dog collars on their children to “show off” at the sex fair scream that the Bible is “immoral”.
North Dallas Thirty, who elsewhere has been both humorously and accurately called “North Liar Forty” for his unsubstantiated accusations*, alleges that the Folsom Street Fair is populated by “leftists.”
It so happens that I went to that fair in 1990. I was on a business trip to San Francisco, and had a free afternoon. What the hell, I thought. I’ll go see what this is all about.
I wasn’t carrying a leash, nor was I on one. As I walked around, the impression I got was of a tired and affected crowd. In its own way, it reminded me of the umpteenth high school drama club staging of Jesus Christ, Superstar. I wasn’t shocked, offended, or outraged. I was bored. I lasted about an hour and a half.
Something else I noticed was that the event had a big heterosexual component. Maybe that’s partly why I was bored, but even the gay side of it struck me as a pose. But then, the S&M scene — “stand and model,” as people would call it — always left me cool if not cold, even when I was younger and a lot hornier than I am today.
I never took it at face value, any more than I take the World Wrestling Federation at face value. In the case of “S&M” if the participants are volunteers, it’s not quite the same. And anyone who’s been to a “leather bar” knows that it’s mainly a fashion statement. I hung out in those places because I hated disco, didn’t like to dance, and the music was usually low enough so permit a conversation. At a fashion level I at least partly appreciated the homage to, if not the reality of, surface masculinity.
But even at that level, those places didn’t hold much appeal for me. It’s a free country, so when I could I’d find a gay country-western joint. Back in the day, my cowboy hat was a little ridiculous, but it was boffo at the box office. North Liar Forty* will doubtlessly disapprove, and tell us that the only moral place for a man to have a drink and meet another man is at a piano bar on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.
As for me, I’m all in favor of piano bars, and discos, and leather bars, and country-western bars, and whatever other sort of decorations the gay prom committee might want to invent. Unlike some people who walk through life with all four cheeks sucked in, I’m one of those classic “live and let live” kind of guy. If I don’t want to watch “Sweatin’ to the Oldies,” I’ll change the channel, but I’m not going to try and yank Richard Simmons off the air or run around whining about the immorality or the effeminancy of it all.
Now, if North Liar Forty* is truly scandalized by the Folsom Street Fair and not just striking a pose of faux outrage and he and other Log Cabinettes are wont to do, wouldn’t you think he’d be really mad at the Folsom Street Fair that took place at Abu Ghraib? That one was for real, and Abu Ghraib isn’t the only place that the U.S. military has used S&M on enemy combatants during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
As tolerant of the passing parade as I am, I don’t think our country ought to be in the business of opening up an S&M ranch without “safe words.” Not so with North Liar Forty* who on a different website has fairly knocked himself out lampooning those who object to the American use of torture, sexual and otherwise, in the current war. So much for NLF* and his implied accusations of “hypocrisy” and “immorality.”
* On the “Malcontent” website, North Liar Forty wrote the following: [Sen. Maria} Cantwell and her fellow Democrats said Foley was a pedophile and insisted that it wasn?t good enough for the law to take care of him; there had to be a public excoriation, and his presence meant that all Republicans supported pedophilia and had to be punished.
When I asked North Liar Forty to either provide a link to the speech in which Cantwell “said” that Foley was a “pedophile,” he screamed and shouted and stamped his little feet. But the cows never came home: He neither coughed up the evidence nor retracted his lie. Thus the sobriquet, North Liar Forty. Girlfriend, if them flip-flops fit, wear ’em!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I agree with ND30 that most slaves were happy to be in their position and that they should be happy that they ended up in the USA and not stuck in Africa.
Here’s a suggestion, ColoradoPatriot; why not quote what I actually said? It isn’t as if I haven’t provided you the links to it previously.
When I asked North Liar Forty to either provide a link to the speech in which Cantwell “said” that Foley was a “pedophile,” he screamed and shouted and stamped his little feet.
When you asked, Charles Wilson?
The person who asked that was someone named “anon”, who proceeded to amusingly confuse the names of multiple commentors, get the name of the board owner wrong, call people “retarded”, and have a general meltdown.
Follow that thread downward, it’s all there. Including the denials when I did provide quotes of Democrats claiming Foley was a pedophile and a danger to children.
Now, if North Liar Forty* is truly scandalized by the Folsom Street Fair and not just striking a pose of faux outrage and he and other Log Cabinettes are wont to do, wouldn’t you think he’d be really mad at the Folsom Street Fair that took place at Abu Ghraib?
And oddly enough, the soldiers who did that were rightly prosecuted, tried, convicted, and punished.
As for “lampooning people”, what you don’t like, Charles Wilson, is that I am demonstrating that people like yourself would rather that al-Qaeda plots be undisturbed, that the 9/11 master plotter not be caught, and that lives be lost than that an identified terrorist operative who was already named as one of the plotters attempting to blow up LAX in 1999 and who was operating an al-Qaeda safe house be waterboarded for information that would break up plots, lead directly to the capture of said master plotter, and prevent attacks from taking lives.
Just say that you would rather Americans die than a terrorist be waterboarded. That’s all it takes.
Meanwhile, the reason you’re slinging all of this is because you’re trying to avoid the main point, which is that the gay leftists who scream “immoral” at the Bible for its passages on slavery fully endorse slavery, as is shown at Folsom, and they fully endorse dressing up two-year-old children in collars and taking them to said sex fair.
Now, just say publicly that you have no problem with gays practicing any sort of sexual torture and slavery, and that you don’t consider it in the least bit immoral to dress up children in slave wear and take them to a sex fair to “show off”.
The funny part about you, Charles Wilson, is that, as your words as “anon” show on Malcontent, you are COMPLETELY intolerant of other people with different opinions, and you use the same hateful words towards them that you decry other gays using.
It’s no surprise that you tried to publish under a pseudonym there, as you do at other sites, so that you can maintain this mask you attempt here as “Charles Wilson”.
posted by Charles Wilson on
The person who asked that was someone named “anon”, who proceeded to amusingly confuse the names of multiple commentors, get the name of the board owner wrong, call people “retarded”, and have a general meltdown.
The sign-on name is irrelevant, North Liar Forty. You told a lie about Sen. Maria Cantwell. You still won’t own up to your lies. This is the Log Cabinette Way, isn’t it?
Just say that you would rather Americans die than a terrorist be waterboarded. That’s all it takes.
Guess who won the second world war without torturing enemy combatants? That’s right, the United States. Your incompetent president has lost the Iraq War. Torturers are losers, North Liar Forty.
Now, just say publicly that you have no problem with gays practicing any sort of sexual torture and slavery, and that you don’t consider it in the least bit immoral to dress up children in slave wear and take them to a sex fair to “show off”.
I think consenting adults should pretty much do what they want. If someone gets hurt, then the police should be called. And I don’t think it’s a good idea to dress up the kids in “slave wear.”
The funny part about you, Charles Wilson, is that, as your words as “anon” show on Malcontent, you are COMPLETELY intolerant of other people with different opinions, and you use the same hateful words towards them that you decry other gays using.
North Liar Forty, please provide us with the evidence that Sen. Maria Cantwell “said” that Foley was a “pedophile,” or retract your Log Cabinette lie. Thank you. See how polite I can be?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The sign-on name is irrelevant, North Liar Forty.
Which is why you’re melting down over having it and the namecalling you did under it revealed.
Guess who won the second world war without torturing enemy combatants?
You may want to read Diplomat Among Warriors, by Robert Daniel Murphy, before you make that claim.
Unequipped and under-supervised prison guards snapping and being sadistic towards prisoners to the point of torture is nothing new; heck, the Stanford prison experiment demonstrated the whole process in a most documentable and scientific fashion.
Furthermore, Charles Wilson, you are avoiding taking a stand on your principles. Simply say that you would rather people be killed, the 9/11 master plotter not be caught, and numerous terrorist plots be allowed to continue than a single terrorist operative be waterboarded.
I think consenting adults should pretty much do what they want.
Well, no, you don’t.
You see, for example, you claim that it’s wrong to have sex or solicit sex in public restrooms. You claim that it’s wrong for a person to be a prostitute or to solicit a prostitute. You claim that it’s wrong for a person to be in porn videos. You claim that it’s wrong for a person to have unprotected sex. You claim that it’s wrong for a Congressperson to send lewd messages or emails to a former page over the age of consent.
Except, of course, when your fellow gays do it.
And I don’t think it’s a good idea to dress up the kids in “slave wear.”
Why? Isn’t this what you said before?
As for me, I’m all in favor of piano bars, and discos, and leather bars, and country-western bars, and whatever other sort of decorations the gay prom committee might want to invent. Unlike some people who walk through life with all four cheeks sucked in, I’m one of those classic “live and let live” kind of guy. If I don’t want to watch “Sweatin’ to the Oldies,” I’ll change the channel, but I’m not going to try and yank Richard Simmons off the air or run around whining about the immorality or the effeminancy of it all.
Funny how the lefty gays like yourself scream and whine that there’s nothing wrong or immoral with playing master/slave or dressing up or going to Folsom….but then get all prudish when forced to confront the effect of that, which is when lefty gays start doing it with their children.
North Liar Forty, please provide us with the evidence that Sen. Maria Cantwell “said” that Foley was a “pedophile,” or retract your Log Cabinette lie.
As I said before, Charles Wilson….. you are saying that Cantwell never opposed Foley?s behavior, opposed punishing him, and opposed publicizing it.
That explains why she had her very own on staff who was even better at it than Foley was.
And if you’re trying to argue that Democrats never claimed Foley was a danger to children, think again — which makes their own inaction on him even more puzzling.
posted by a fan of nd30 on
ND30 said: “It is hilarious to watch lefty gays who lead people around on leashes, refer to them as “boy” and “slave” and order them to lick their boots, and who put dog collars on their children to “show off” at the sex fair scream that the Bible is “immoral”.”
Obviously, role playing mimicking master/slave interactions are just as bad as keeping actual slaves and forcing people to work — including by beating them up.
How dare TEH GAY LEFTISTS!!! accuse such a Holy Book, which not allows a man to sell his own daughters as slaves, but also states that it is OK to beat slaves so bad, that they could die as a result of it two or three days later, is belittling to females and apologetical to the mistreatment of slaves? (http://www.drbo.org/chapter/02021.htm)
The Bible says: 20 He that striketh his bondman or bondwoman with a rod, and they die under his hands, shall be guilty of the crime.
21 But if the party remain alive a day or two, he shall not be subject to the punishment, because it is his money. (Exodus, 21)
ND30 said: “But it [The Bible] also makes it clear that slaves are to be treated with respect and dignity”
That is so true!!!! Even though The Bible allows the slavemaster to beat the hell up of his slaves, and beat them so hard that they could die some days later (after all, according to The Holy Book, slaves are nothing more than their masters’ money), The Bible required the slavemaster to treat “it” (to quote The Bible) with respect and dignity — that is so obvious.
ND30: “Oddly enough, I don’t see you also repudiating the whole of classical Greek, Roman, and Egyptian learning, culture, and writings as “blatantly immoral” because all of them kept slaves and because numerous of their writings endorse slavery.”
Again — so true. GAY LEFTISTS have blurred reality just in order to have an excuse to bash Christianity and The Bible, while remaining conveniently blind to the other religons. I mean, ancient Egyptian priests and the Greek Pagan Right have conjoined efforts to undermine social acceptance of gay and lesbian people, and their activism have curbed gay rights in a much more dramatical way than the Christian Right ever intended to. For how long will gay leftists continue to ignore them just to bash Christians? Ancient Egyptian and Greek Pagan theologies are still very much alive and powerful today. We cannot have a discussion on the inerrancy of The Bible and how a fundamentalist and literalist approach to The Great Book might perpetuate bigotry against gays without talking about how stereotypes created by the Greek Pagan Right affect our lives! We have to tell the greek pagans their religion is not perfect either!
ND30: it’s simply antireligious bigotry with a rather transparent attempt to put a pleasing veneer on it.
Again, I agree 190% with ND30!!!! Obviously, passing legislation that would simply tell gay families they don’t deserve the same rights as traditional families is not homophobic! Not at all!! But criticizing religion, even if that doesn’t curb its believers’ rights, is extremely bigoted!! Oh, I mean, the former is true only about Christianity! It’s bigoted to criticize Christianity, but it’s OK to criticize other religions, after all, The Bible calls other peoples’ religion “fake” all the time.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Even though The Bible allows the slavemaster to beat the hell up of his slaves, and beat them so hard that they could die some days later (after all, according to The Holy Book, slaves are nothing more than their masters’ money), The Bible required the slavemaster to treat “it” (to quote The Bible) with respect and dignity — that is so obvious.
Thank you for providing such an excellent demonstration of why gay leftists are wholly incompetent in matters of Scripture.
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Ephesians 6:9
Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.
Colossians 4:1
Furthermore, you might want to quote the whole of Exodus 21, in which the conditions under which a person may be enslaved and under which they are to be made free are listed out in more detail. In short, abuse them and physically harm them, and they will be freed.
What you’ve managed to do now is to bring up one of two possibilities: either you don’t know Scripture and are commenting on something of which you have incomplete knowledge, or you do know what Scripture says and are deliberately misquoting it.
Which is it?
GAY LEFTISTS have blurred reality just in order to have an excuse to bash Christianity and The Bible, while remaining conveniently blind to the other religons. I mean, ancient Egyptian priests and the Greek Pagan Right have conjoined efforts to undermine social acceptance of gay and lesbian people, and their activism have curbed gay rights in a much more dramatical way than the Christian Right ever intended to.
So what you are saying is that, contrary to Mark’s statement, it’s not slavery that gays consider immoral; indeed, gays are perfectly willing to accept and allow cultures and materials that practiced, endorsed, and promoted slavery without calling them “immoral”, as long as they didn’t have any problem with gays.
Obviously, passing legislation that would simply tell gay families they don’t deserve the same rights as traditional families is not homophobic! Not at all!!
Well, that was the stance of the leaders of HRC and the DNC who endorsed FMA supporters; indeed, they called people who openly told gay families they don’t deserve the same rights as traditional families “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, and gave them tens of millions of dollars in endorsements and support.
What you’ve managed to do now is to bring up one of two possibilities; either you don’t believe it is homophobic to tell gay families they don’t deserve the same rights as traditional families, or you don’t care as long as it’s Democrats telling it to you.
To summarize, what you’ve managed to demonstrate is this:
1) You are either ignorant or deliberately deceptive about what the Bible actually says
2) You do not consider slavery or cultures and literature that promote it and practice it to be immoral as long as they’re neutral towards or supportive of gays
3) You claim that supporting and passing laws that deny gays marriage is “homophobic”, but you claim that Democrat Party members who do so are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Given that, I can see why you and your ilk are driven to desperate publicity stunts like public protesting and screaming. You obviously can’t win intellectually.
posted by dalea on
Here is a handy link that shows
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm
that there is not now, nor has there ever been, an historical Jesus of Nazareth. He is as mytheo-poetic as Thor or Mithras.
Jesus, there’s no there there.
posted by Charles Wilson on
You see, for example, you claim that it’s wrong to have sex or solicit sex in public restrooms.
It’s illegal, and when you or your Log Cabinette buddies do so, it is hypocritical and amusing. Do you find it exciting?
You claim that it’s wrong for a person to be a prostitute or to solicit a prostitute.
Please come up with a citation for that “claim,” North Liar Forty.
You claim that it’s wrong for a person to be in porn videos.
Please come up with a citation for that “claim,” North Liar Forty.
You claim that it’s wrong for a person to have unprotected sex.
Please come up with a citation for that “claim,” North Liar Forty. I don’t think I’ve made that claim, but now that you mention it, I think it’s unwise to have unprotected sex.
You claim that it’s wrong for a Congressperson to send lewd messages or emails to a former page over the age of consent.
Please come up with a citation for that “claim,” North Liar Forty.
Funny how the lefty gays like yourself scream and whine that there’s nothing wrong or immoral with playing master/slave or dressing up or going to Folsom….but then get all prudish when forced to confront the effect of that, which is when lefty gays start doing it with their children.
How do you know that those people were “lefties” or even gay? Did you take a survey? And what about the military S&M that you love so much? Do you love it because that’s right-wing S&M? Do you love it because it was involuntary? Do you love it because it was done by straight people?
you are saying that Cantwell never opposed Foley?s behavior, opposed punishing him, and opposed publicizing it
Not so, North Liar Forty. I asked you to come up with the proof that Cantwell “said” that Foley was a “pedophile.” You keep dodging the question. This is because you lied. This is what Log Cabinettes do.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It’s illegal, and when you or your Log Cabinette buddies do so, it is hypocritical and amusing. Do you find it exciting?
Hardly.
Meanwhile, though, let’s test; state yourself that gay men who are having public sex and who are leaving cum all over the place, which in and of itself constitutes a public health hazard, are engaging in illegal activity and should be arrested and punished.
Please come up with a citation for that “claim,” North Liar Forty.
My suggestion: start here and work your way out.
How do you know that those people were “lefties” or even gay? Did you take a survey?
You did read , right?
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.
And if that article isn’t enough demonstrable proof that they are indeed gay, there’s more.
The problem here, Charles Wilson, is just as I called you out on above; rather than be forced to admit that your fellow lefty gays were engaged in bad behavior, you spin — in this case, by trying to deny that they’re gay.
And then what’s really funny is that you try to deflect onto Abu Ghraib, even after my statement above that the soldiers involved were RIGHTLY prosecuted, tried, convicted, and punished.
Not so, North Liar Forty. I asked you to come up with the proof that Cantwell “said” that Foley was a “pedophile.”
And I pointed out that you were thus claiming that Cantwell never opposed Foley?s behavior, opposed punishing him, and opposed publicizing it.
Now, I am happy to let you admit that Cantwell opposed Foley’s behavior, supported punishing him, and supported publicizing it. But the reason you won’t is simple; that opens HER up to charges of hypocrisy for having a REAL pedophile on her staff who thought it was “hot” to have sex with pubeless boys.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It’s illegal, and when you or your Log Cabinette buddies do so, it is hypocritical and amusing. Do you find it exciting?
Hardly.
Meanwhile, though, let’s test; state yourself that gay men who are having public sex and who are leaving cum all over the place, which in and of itself constitutes a public health hazard, are engaging in illegal activity and should be arrested and punished.
Please come up with a citation for that “claim,” North Liar Forty.
My suggestion: start here and work your way out.
How do you know that those people were “lefties” or even gay? Did you take a survey?
You did read the article I linked, right?
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.
And if that article isn’t enough demonstrable proof that they are indeed gay, there’s more.
The problem here, Charles Wilson, is just as I called you out on above; rather than be forced to admit that your fellow lefty gays were engaged in bad behavior, you spin — in this case, by trying to deny that they’re gay.
And then what’s really funny is that you try to deflect onto Abu Ghraib, even after my statement above that the soldiers involved were RIGHTLY prosecuted, tried, convicted, and punished.
Not so, North Liar Forty. I asked you to come up with the proof that Cantwell “said” that Foley was a “pedophile.”
And I pointed out that you were thus claiming that Cantwell never opposed Foley?s behavior, opposed punishing him, and opposed publicizing it.
Now, I am happy to let you admit that Cantwell opposed Foley’s behavior, supported punishing him, and supported publicizing it.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I am trying to figure out what I wrote that was “whining and screaming.” Of course, ND30 calls anything “whining” that he wants to dismiss instead of refuting. Screaming, needless to say, is difficult to pull off in this silent medium of comments posted to a webpage. As to my alleged name-calling, I guess ND30 means my quoting Frank Kameny calling Benedict XVI “Maledict.” Oh, how wounding!
Sorry, ND30, but neither I nor Paul Varnell have said or done anything to infringe upon Benedict’s or any other person’s rights in any way. The same cannot be said vice versa. Your assertion that advocates of abortion rights or stem cell research constitute use of the government to infringe on other persons’ rights is facially false. Whether you like it or not, legal personhood (as distinct from Christian moral teaching) has always been defined as starting at birth.
ND30, of course, is so unscrupulous that he calls me anti-religious despite my latest article having explicitly stated that secularists should be careful not to throw out the religious baby with the fundamentalist bathwater. I also (see above) suggested honoring local Dignity chapters as a constructive response to the Pope’s U.S. visit next April. My group, GLAA, last year honored the local Metropolitan Community Church chapter, and previously honored the Jewish Community Center. So anti-religious! Paul, I concede, strikes a harsher tone than I, but that is neither unjustified (even if I think that my more moderate approach is more productive) nor is it remotely comparable to the religious right’s endless attempts to use the power of the state (not just their pulpits) to deny legal equality to gay people.
When I read the lame attempt to defend the Bible’s endorsement of slavery, I feel like singing “Carry Me Back to Ole Virginny,” one of several old Southern state songs in which someone who never experienced slavery gins up ersatz nostalgia for “Massa” (yes, “Carry Me Back” actually uses the word). As a friend of mine would put it, “Negro, Please!”
posted by Charles Wilson on
Poor North Liar Forty. He’s been caught in some lies, and his usual Log Cabinette tactic of brazening it out isn’t working. Now, we know that he doesn’t like it when “gay leftists” in San Francisco attend an outdoor S&M fair, but when it comes to torture by the U.S. military, he’s all for it. I’ve also noticed that he’s written nothing about the many heterosexuals who attend the Folsom Fair. North Liar Forty, is your rule that if straight people are doing the sexual torture, it’s “moral?” Something else to remember: When the military sexually tortures people, there’s no “safe word.” You can scream William F Buckley! all you want, but they’ll keep doing it. Does that excite you?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I also (see above) suggested honoring local Dignity chapters as a constructive response to the Pope’s U.S. visit next April. My group, GLAA, last year honored the local Metropolitan Community Church chapter, and previously honored the Jewish Community Center.
All that makes obvious, Richard, is that you support organizations who are fully supportive of your antireligious bigotry.
For the Jewish Community Center, that’s not hard; they themselves go out of their way to publicize the fact that they are non-sectarian, and that the “Jewish” in their title is little more than a name and an advertisement for a kosher kitchen.
As far as the MCC and Dignity, those groups are downright hilarious; they, like Soulforce, will stand meekly by while gays claim Christianity is for the ignorant and superstitious, that Jesus never existed, that the Bible is nothing but a myth, and that, like Dawkins, there is no God — and then attack other Christians for being intolerant.
nor is it remotely comparable to the religious right’s endless attempts to use the power of the state (not just their pulpits) to deny legal equality to gay people..
Of course, that involves defining “using the power of the state” as “religious people voting”.
If you want to ban religious people from voting or holding office, go right ahead and try. It would at least be honest.
Furthermore, Richard, no one really believes gays screaming about religious influence and “legal equality”, inasmuch as those same gays are obviously endorsing and supporting, with tens of millions of dollars and obedient applause, politicians who support the very FMA and state constitutional amendments that these same gays point to as examples of the “religious” trying to “impose their will on others”.
When I read the lame attempt to defend the Bible’s endorsement of slavery, I feel like singing “Carry Me Back to Ole Virginny,” one of several old Southern state songs in which someone who never experienced slavery gins up ersatz nostalgia for “Massa” (yes, “Carry Me Back” actually uses the word).
No need to sing, Richard; you need only explain why the Bible is the only thing you find “immoral”, inasmuch as there is far more emphasis on slavery among the classical Greek, the Roman, and the ancient Egyptian cultures and their associated philosophical systems, and far more documented mistreatment of slaves by followers of these.
Owning slaves is not a requirement of Christianity. The reason that the Bible speaks to it is the same reason that it speaks to matters of weights and measures; it is emphasizing that there is a right way and a wrong way.
And frankly, I find it amusing that people who think there’s nothing wrong with dressing up two-year-old children in slave wear and taking them to a sex fair are calling the Bible “immoral”.
And finally:
Whether you like it or not, legal personhood (as distinct from Christian moral teaching) has always been defined as starting at birth.
Which is interesting, because, in the Endangered Species Act, the penalties for killing an animal in utero or in the egg are the same as killing an adult animal.
I think it an interesting commentary on liberals that they grant recognition to unborn animals and punish those who harm them for social convenience or money, but insist that unborn humans are nothing more than parasites and spare tissue that doesn’t deserve anything of the sorts.
posted by Charles Wilson on
I find it amusing that people who think there’s nothing wrong with dressing up two-year-old children in slave wear and taking them to a sex fair are calling the Bible “immoral”.
It’s equally amusing that someone who calls the Folsom Fair “immoral” just loves it when the U.S. military employs torture, including sexual torture, in its detainment facilities, and approves of the Bible’s justifications for slavery. North Liar Forty would have made a good Southern Baptist circa 1860. In fact, I think he’d make a good one now, except that the Southern Baptists hate homosexuals. I wonder if this will keep him from forming the Log Cabinette Annex to the Huckabee campaign.
My prediction: North Liar Forty will have no problem supporting Huckabee or Romney. His justification will be that “lefty gays take their children to the Folsom Fair,” and therefore all homos need to be restrained. North Liar Forty, does restrain excite you?
posted by Charles Wilson on
North Liar Forty, did you by any chance write this article for the “Real Women of Canada?” Now, let’s see if I can figure it out. You’re dignified. You’re moral. You’re religious. You support S&M as long as it’s done in military facilities without safe words. But you’re queer. This is a problem. What we need is a new religious doctrine. Something about the duty of any moral homosexual to accept her husband’s “servant leadership.” But homosexuals can’t be included, North Liar Forty. Back to the Folsom Fair with you!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again, Charles Wilson, as I mentioned above, I stated quite clearly that the soldiers who perpetrated the Abu Ghraib abuses were RIGHTLY prosecuted, tried, convicted, and punished.
Now, so far, you’ve accused me of public sex, racism, supporting slavery, supporting Abu Ghraib behavior, and writing unflattering articles. I’ve no doubt you can come up with more entertaining things than that, because quite obviously your method is to fling accusation after accusation after accusation at me in the hope that something sticks.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Now, so far, you’ve accused me of public sex, racism, supporting slavery, supporting Abu Ghraib behavior, and writing unflattering articles.
Poor North Liar Forty. Caught in a lie and no way out. What to do, what to do! Quick! Check the Log Cabinette manual! Okay, here’s the thing: Tell more lies! Give it up, North Liar Forty. Dig any further and you’ll be eligible for a free pass to the Beijing Olympics.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah yes, and now they start claiming they never made such accusations.
Public sex:
It’s illegal, and when you or your Log Cabinette buddies do so, it is hypocritical and amusing. Do you find it exciting?
Racism, supporting slavery, and supporting Abu Ghraib behavior:
It’s equally amusing that someone who calls the Folsom Fair “immoral” just loves it when the U.S. military employs torture, including sexual torture, in its detainment facilities, and approves of the Bible’s justifications for slavery.
And finally, writing unflattering articles:
North Liar Forty, did you by any chance write this article for the “Real Women of Canada?”
And before you start attempting to argue that these somehow didn’t qualify because they had question marks somewhere close to them, keep in mind that these sort of “When did you stop beating your wife?” statements have long since moved out of the “question” realm.
Finally, thank you for continuing to make it clear that the “live and let live” attitude that you claim to hold is not the one you practice.
posted by Charles Wilson on
North Liar Forty, you slay me! But now that we’re on these subjects, DO you enjoy public sex like your buddy Larry Craig? As for torture, you in fact ARE pro-torture. Go read your own postings on “The Malcontent” blog, where you ridicule opponents of torture and call them unamerican and pro-terrorist.
And DID you write that article for “Real Women of Canada?” If not, you could have! Ha!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
My take on torture is simply this, Charles Wilson; 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.
In contrast, Abu Ghraib was clearly motivated, not by a need for information, but from sadistic behavior. That is typical of al-Qaeda, as the capture of their safe house showed today, and is why we RIGHTLY prosecuted, tried, convicted, and punished those soldiers who were involved in Abu Ghraib; their actions had no benefit whatsoever that could be described to them, and as a result, were just plain wrong.
al-Qaeda is very aware of the fact that people have such an irrational hatred of Bush and the United States that they will do anything in their power to help them, as the example of Lynne Stewart demonstrates. She, like you, attempted to argue that her helping and supporting terrorists was a “moral principle” — but, as we saw, that “moral principle” was used to facilitate the deaths of other people.
Thus, what exactly are we supposed to call someone like yourself who would rather terrorist plots and attacks continue, that these operatives remain concealed and uncaptured, that the lead planner of the 9/11 attack remain free, and that people die as a result than to waterboard 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?
posted by Charles Wilson on
North Liar Forty, I won’t even bother debating what’s “moral” with you, because you don’t have any morals. Instead, I’ll put it in terms a Republican, and even a Log Cabinette, can understand. First, torture doesn’t work. Second, it’s bad for your image, especially when you’re the United States. Third, people torture not to get information but out of frustration, anger, and occasionally (especially when torture is officially sanctioned and ongoing, as it has been during your president’s time in office) out of pure sadism.
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. I’m against torture. If consenting adults want to do it, I’ll look the other way as long as no one gets hurt. That’s because I’m a live ‘n let live kind of guy.
You, on the other hand, are a Log Cabinette who is unable to tell the truth about a single thing, and who when caught in a lie, just tells some more of them.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Be careful with that tone, Charles…disrespecting ND30 and infringing on his right to libel and lie about others can get your posts deleted around these parts. Tread lightly, brave soul.
posted by Charles Wilson on
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!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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.
posted by Charles Wilson on
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.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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”.
posted by Charles Wilson on
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?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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.
posted by Charles Wilson on
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?
posted by The Gay Species on
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.
posted by North Liar Forty on
Aha! So you are on the side of the terrorists, are you?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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.
posted by The Gay Species on
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!
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
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?
posted by John M. on
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.
posted by Sugar Rush on
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.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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.
posted by Sugar Rush on
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.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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.
posted by Sugar Rush on
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.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
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.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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.”
posted by Charles Wilson on
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.
posted by Sugar Rush on
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.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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?
posted by Sugar Rush on
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.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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.
posted by Sugar Rush on
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
posted by Charles Wilson on
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.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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”.
posted by Charles Wilson on
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.