The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as they insist on being called, has earned another reason to be regarded with a sneer of contempt: they sent a letter to all of their churches in California urging their adherents to vote for Proposition 8. It’s bizarre that a religion known for being out of step with the rest of the country on the issue of marriage, a place populated with polygamists and young girls treated as chattel and coaxed into child marriages, now wants to “preserve the sacred institution of marriage”. They sunk tens of millions of dollars into the campaign.
Californians are rightly demonstrating against the Mormon church—I’d be more than a little pissed off myself. After Enron enriched itself by bilking Californians, now you’ve got Salt Lake City trying to turn you into a little Utah. You’ve got cause to be annoyed at the way you’re being targeted.
People are trying to do something, and one thought is to try and revoke the Mormon church’s tax exempt status. Ah, sweet dream. I’d dearly love to see Obama repair the damage to our economy by revoking religious tax exemptions across the board, and refill our treasury with loot from the theological con artists. Alas, I’m at an Americans United meeting, and the place is crawling with lawyers and experts on separation of church and state issues, and I asked Barry Lynn directly what kind of legal recourse we had, and he regretfully pointed out that what the Mormon church did was entirely legal. It was ethically repugnant, of course, but complaining to the IRS is likely to net you doodly-squat in this case.
We may have to settle for escalating our mockery of mormonism. It’s not hard, after all: it is one of the most palpably ridiculous, unethical, dumb-ass religions flourishing in our unfortunate nation of theological dumb-asses. Did you know that being excommunicated from the Mormon church can get you expelled from BYU? Don’t go to BYU (not that there’s much chance many of my readers would do so), and feel free to sneer a little bit at the poor BYU graduates. Forget that ski vacation in Park City; Colorado has great snow, too. Be even ruder to the next pair of white-shirted Mormon missionaries who come to your door. Hey, does anyone know what a Mormon would find heretical? Send me something they find sacred.
Otherwise, we’re just stuck with this ugly outcome. All we can do is be more aware of the flock of smug, sanctimonious, hypocritical holy meddlers in our midst.
Remember, though, that all they were doing is trying to keep the definition of marriage as it has been since the beginning of time. Dumb-asses.
Aww, and there you have it Owlmirror – we go right back to Lilith.
1000!
“But honey, I have no free will in the matter — God is making me go against nature. We can’t fight against God forcing us to do this horrible, unnatural business.”
“Oh, well, when you put it that way… Can’t fight against God, now can we?”
“Nope. Teehee!”
Yeah, I get all giggly when some moron troll shows up and makes stupid claims about no-one here having read the bible – all I have to do is count down the minutes until you or one of the other learned deconverts shows up and hands them their ass on a platter.
Funnily enough, though, despite my minimal exposure to scripture I’m often surprised to find I know more of it than quite a few so-called christians.
I don’t seem to be bothered by the Door Knockers for Jebus where I am. The Avon lady showed up today – and boy, was she presented with a sight since i’m home sick today and I’m sure I look it; I’ve got crazy hair, bloodshot eyes and look about as good as I feel.
Funnily enough she didn’t try to sell me anything.
Now there’s another whole can of worms there. Pseudo-religion or pyramid scheme?
Probably less so than Amway, if that even still exists.
Wowbagger – I’m sorry to hear that you are sick. I’m dealing with the cracked right elbow. Hurts like hell.
I also find it amusing that the faithful think that we deconverts don’t know the bible. I’m sort of naughty in that regard. I dare them to bring it on.
Amway is so bad, I can’t believe my Mum used to be involved with them. Though I can’t remember if it was her directly or buying products off friends who were part of Amway. Very creepy cult that one.
What I find amusing is that the faithful think that knowing the bible is actually important. Unless you are arguing theology, I can’t think of a higher source of irrelevance for anything.
Yeah, it’s all very circular – they want to use a book written by people who share their beliefs, about events that support the premise that their beliefs are valid, as an argument.
Problem (for them) is that it doesn’t take more than a cursory glance at it to start finding the flaws – the first thing I wondered about was why a god who’s supposedly kind and loving would throw Adam and Eve out of Eden just for eating fruit. Overreact much?
Thanks. Hope you get better soon too.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen Sastra swear before. Reap the whirlwind, homophobic assholes.
“What I find amusing is that the faithful think that knowing the bible is actually important.”
Sheesh, tell me about it. I never tell people to read Lord of the Flies with an “open heart” or any of that nonsense, and I happen to think it’s a pretty good book, and one you can learn from.
Not just throwing them out, not just cursing them, but also cursing all of their descendants and the earth itself.
When God ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.
There is nothing that same sex marraiges could do to “traditional family values” that Christians (and Neocatholics) haven’t already done. They might even be better suited for it, and that is what i think is the crux of it all. They don’t want to be shown up by the people the assume to be superior to. In all likelyhood, it could be attached to the movement away from the Bible and religion in general, and they are afraid of losing the power that they have wielded for sooo long, as a community.
What get’s me Wowbagger is Genesis ch. 11 (Tower of Babel), where God clearly shows his fear of the human race, or of being abandoned, at least. And what would God truly lose if no one believed in him? i think that is another very important thing to ask a christian: What freakin’ difference could it possibly make that God would overreact and burn you in hellfire for all eternity? He never loses, and at that, he’s a sore loser. Although you would never hear of this in the OT, because the concept of an afterlife was rough at best and the eternality of the human soul wasn’t hammered out until Plato came along, right? That would explain the proponderance of heinous things in the Old Testament, if you assume that there isn’t essentially an afterlife, which means for God, “use it or lose it.””
It just doesn’t make sense. The bible (or the book of mormon) is not a psychology or sociology book. All you can do is learn theology, and really what good does that do? It seems you learn theology for the sole purpose of telling others that don’t know theology as well as you that they are going to hell.
If you want to argue theology, it helps to be an expert. But really it’s nothing more than literary knowledge. I’d consider a biblical scholar to be roughly on the same authoritative stance as a Middle-Earth scholar. Sure you can argue what the allegory of Gollum biting the ring off Frodo’s finger and falling into Mount Doom means, and an expert could probably rip you apart on it if you hadn’t spent time reading the appendicies, unfinished tales of middle earth, the salmarillion, etc. But in the end, you are just arguing about the motivations of fictional characters. At least the middle-earth scholars don’t delude themselves into thinking that they have divine insight into the universe…
OMG 1012 (clitches chest, falls over)!!!!!
“clitches”…..why,whywywhywhywhywhy
WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY!!!!
Don’t i preview beforehand? *slaps self*
I really should turn that into a blog post.
The irony behind the parallels in Middle Earth (if that’s what it’s really called, i’ve Read the Samarillion and so now am completely confused) and reality is that Music is the creation of the World; i hope that C.S.Lewis didn’t come out with the Magicians Nephew before then, because That would be tragic, having to borrow that same meme from a “B” book writer would be very detrimental i feel to the story. But i digress. The irony is that Lucifer is the god of Music (demigod, whatever), and so all this talk of musical beginnings ultimately hearkens back to the idea that evil is necessary and, in fact, beautiful. Nonewithstanding is the fact that without Satan, God has virually no purpose. Eerie how the pieces fit together sometimes.
Likewise. But it’s where the religious blind-spot comes in; they can’t see that it’s just another book – despite the numerous logical flaws, the historical inaccuracies, the gross injustices and the flat-out loony tunes occurrences they still believe it’s a work of divine origin; the wisdom of a kind, loving, all-powerful, benevolent deity passed down to his people.
The biggest quandary for me about christians is which group is worse – those who claim to believe despite having absolutely no idea about what the bible says, or those who know it intimately and who engage in such complicated mental gymnastics so they don’t have to admit that it can’t possibly be what they claim it to be.
i would have to say the first group Wowbagger, for the reason that intelligent apologists and theologans won’t butt heads with science as much, and will slowly be outmoded. The cognizant tightrope double-think often is enough to keep them from making an impression on even their fellow believers (R.C.Sproul for 1 abhors the anti-intellectual environment of the various denominations), so they aren’t really making any difference. Like the smart McCain supporters in California who didn’t vote because they knew that it was actually Damaging to thier candidate if they did vote. Well, the idiots are the ones who oppose science and intellectualism; the ignorant morons that never looked into the Problem of Evil, the many conflicting perspectives of the Gospels, and the putrid mess that is the Old Testament.
However, in more general matters, their votes count as much as anyone elses. their overwelming numbers make up for the fact that there is no benifiting anyone should they succeed in what they do, which is how they keep this country from moving forward with the rest of the world. In short, the smarter Christians gain little by sharing an allegiance with the idiots. Even if they do get to keep thier pet delusion. The Double-thinker’s half at least half a brain in reality.
And I think “John Knight” and shudder.
RickrOll, when waxing lyrical, you might consider using paragraphs to help your readers.
i do. but if you insist i chop it finer, i will.
i like big paragraphs, i must confess.
They feel nice and are satisfying to look at.
So
There
You
Are. :P
I’ve been insulted and complimented at the same time. Bravo John. And a big thanks to all who took the ever-shortening time of their lives to read my slop. Only 993 to go, by my estimates.
OOT
Not insulted – though your enthusiasm approaches Walton’s eanestness…
In another thread, and elsewhere, you’ve asked how to use HTML tags; look them up, or (hint) view the source to if you wish to delve into the arcana.
Owlmirror wrote:
Not insulted – though your enthusiasm approaches Walton’s earnestness…
OK, are you SURE you’re not insulting me? lol, i kid Walton.
let’s give this a shot:
(note: this, assuming it works, adds literally nothing to the conversation, but it would make my life that much simpler)
< ok? link HREF=http://www.willcam.com/cmat/html/crossname.html>
OOT
RickrOll, we’re abusing PZ’s leniency, so after this hint I’ll cease the topic.
In #1026, you have an invalid URL field (in the quotes).
‘Tis best to use the comment “preview” to test things; no need to actually post. Test away, but cancel out unless you have a valid comment.
Be aware preview processes the input of the combox, so copy it all before previewing just in case, and repaste iteratively until you grok it.
What a pathetic fuck. Mr “You all hate God and people who try to honor God”, the idiot had no clue. Oh look there’s a problem with induction, therefore Jesus rose from the grave on the 3rd day.
i just want to point something out im not trying to argue with anyone or push my beliefs on anyone. it just hurts to have people act the way their acting towards my religion for no reason.. our church actually has no problem with a union of two people of same sex. they just dont believe that marriage is something that should be given because of its covenent to god and like brandi said even her Gay mother beleives thats what marriage is.. so take your unions and drop it. but before i go i have one question. how many of you are Gay or have someone very dear to you that is gay. maybe that would explain some of your hatred your showing here.
waldo,
Look you lying scum, why isn’t your church opposing all civil marriages, which are explicitly not “covenants to god”. You are a hypocritical, homophobic shitbag, like your co-religionists. My sexual preferences and those of my family and friends are none of your damned business. Now FUCK OFF.
Waldo, there is nothing in Gay Marriage that requires a church to perform the ceremony against their wishes. Nor does a church have to recognize the civil ceremony if they don’t recognize it for heterosexuals. It is a non-issue. Now try to explain why your religion deserves presidence over any other out there. It doesn’t. It should just keep its mouth shut on initiatives, and the people decide without your church spewing false witness, which last I knew was a sin.
waldo #1029 wrote:
We have been trying to explain to you that we do have a reason. Our reason is that you’re intruding Mormon beliefs on “what marriage is supposed to be” into non-Mormon ground, and trying to define legal marriage for everyone.
Earlier I made an analogy with drinking coffee. Many Mormons think it is wrong to drink coffee. That is their right. But if they started trying to ban coffee shops across America, so that nobody could drink coffee — Catholics, atheists, pagans, Jews — don’t you think people would protest? It wouldn’t matter if the majority of the country were Mormons. It wouldn’t matter if Mormons were not the only religion that didn’t drink coffee. It wouldn’t matter if Mormons had very carefully thought through their theological objections to coffee, and had a right to practice their religion as they saw fit.
They do not have a right to make other people practice their religion. They do not have a right to ban “sin.”
This issue is not about religious freedom. You have religious freedom to refuse to marry gay couples in your Temples. It is about freedom itself. Gay marriages are real marriages under secular, worldly criteria. You can recognize and agree with this, even though you’re religious. If you leave out ideas on how God arranged things, there is nothing wrong with gay marriages, because they unite loving couples, and cause no harm.
They are only false marriages if you bring in religious arguments. Even though I’m an atheist, I can see that, too. If God instituted marriage only as a way of bringing together potential breeders, then homosexual marriage is a contradiction.
But religious arguments do not unite American citizens into a common ground. Not only are there citizens with no religion, but there are religions which celebrate and sanctify gay marriages as holy under God. The government has to stay out of this. It can’t let any side decide what God wants and put it into common law. The state shouldn’t have official votes on theology, or anything having to do with — respecting — religion.
That’s in the Constitution. And it has protected Mormons. Do not throw it away when it looks like you don’t “need” it. You do. You will.
No; I have some gay friends and acquaintances, but nobody close to me is gay.
I do not hate Mormons. I hate injustice, irrationality, bigotry, and oppression. The problem is not with the characters of the individual Mormons. Most Mormons are wonderful people.
The problem is with the church, and its doctrine, trying to intrude into non-Mormon territory. The history is false, the theology is weak, and the ethics are immoral. I think people can do better. I could not and would not be able to criticize the religion if I didn’t have respect for the possibility of people doing better.
Waldo stood up for his beliefs and you called him a bigot. Who’s the bigot now Nick? – Brandi
Waldo is. He came here and spewed his hate for gays, so he’s a bigot. He confirms that in his #1029, where he shows the typical bigot’s conviction that anyone who opposes his bigotry can only do so out of personal interest. He’s welcome to “stand up for his beliefs” all he likes; imposing them on others, not so much. The Mormon Church has chosen to enter the political arena; now it must live with the consequences.
But NOTHING excuses violence, intimidation, and my favotire of all- name calling.,/I> – Brandi
Brandi, you’re either extremely stupid or disgustingly dishonest. Can you really not see the difference between “violence and intimidation”, and “name-calling”? The former are serious criminal offences which should be prosecuted as such, the latter is part of free speech.
No, that’s exactly what you’re trying to do.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo!
It’s not “for no reason”, you semi-literate bone-headed bigot.
You don’t own marriage. You don’t get to legislate your religious belief. Nobody does. That’s what separation of church and state is supposed to mean.
Oh, how magnanimous of you: “accept second-class citizenship and fuck off”, eh?
Non-sequitur. A form of Appeal to emotion and a big fat Ignoratio elenchi. My knowing or not knowing someone who is gay has exactly zero to do with my desire or their right to be treated equal under the law.
Try again.
So if the LDS church is so dysfunctional and backwards, why did they defeat the gay marriage proponents?
Quit blaming the mormons, or other religions and ethnic groups for this, and accept responsibility for the loss. You lost because you failed to make a convincing argument. Period.
All this mormon-bashing is totally hypocritical. To them the gay movement is just as strange. Gays really do not understand straight people after all.
Kurt, the LDS poured $25,000,000 into California to approve Prop. 8. That should have never happened. What part of that don’t you understand?
Why should that have never happened? Don’t mormons have the right to lobby voters? How many millions were poured in by the gay marriage advocates, by Hollywood celebs for example?
So maybe the LDS church decided to support this, big deal! That is their civil right. They are new to this and may have made some technical errors. I expect they will create a for-profit lobbying organization for any future efforts. Again, big deal.
You may have lost this with or without the LDS church’s involvement, because many straight people are naturally homophobic. That comes out in the ballot box.
If you want to win gay marriage, you need to get rational about what happened. People are not yet persuaded about gay marriage, this is true across the US. Shoving your views down people’s throats, such as by intimidating straight people who feel that THEIR version of marriage is under attack, is hurting your cause.
Kurt #1037 wrote:
Because they’re powerful, and had money, and people. It’s not mutually exclusive.
The argument against Proposition 8 rested on secular values of liberty, fairness, and law. These values are shared by religious and nonreligious alike. Religious minorities rely on the protection of the Constitution against majorities which wish to oppress them.
The counterarguments for Proposition 8 rested exclusively on religion, and how God and tradition “define marriage.” The proponents all grounded their case in “my version of God is the right one, and it is my job to institute God’s will on earth.” That was the argument. God. If they are not right about what they think God wants, then they have no case.
Since they turned that into their legal argument, and brought it into the public square, then it’s fair game to take it apart. They hurt real families. They hurt real people. They hurt real marriages. None of this hypocritical “protecting marriage” nonsense. They were protecting a nonexistent right to write sectarian religious beliefs into secular law.
There is nothing hypocritical about going after the churches. And not just the churches, but the theology itself — which is how they justified what they did. It’s no more unfair than attacking a business which implemented policies which hurt innocent people. Some of the businesses which made major contributions to this unjust version of Jim Crow laws are being boycotted.
If the churches want to be power players in politics, then they can’t claim sanctuary.
Kurt, every church has a right to tell those who attend what their position is. What churches should not do, and they should be taxed if they do, is to go out to the greater public at election time to try to sway elections. This is part of the social compact that keeps government out of churches.
Now, if no money was given, you would have a point. But money from the LSD was used, which makes their participation immoral. That is what we are pointing out.
Prop 8 should of never gotten on the ballot.
It’s not PRO anything. It’s anti gay. Period.
Well, money from other churches was also used, so why single out the LDS? Because in fact they are well organized and they made a difference perhaps? Isn’t this all just a lot of sour grapes?
I take your points Sastra, and I think you have a good case, I am sure that will be argued in the courts eventually. But what a ridiculous way to settle this problem in a democratic society.
If you can not convince a majority that YOUR views are right, then what leads you to believe that your views are in fact superior.
OK, my personal opinion is that both sides here have failed to create honest discourse on a difficult and complicated topic, a change to our social rules. The pro-gay marriage side is trying to prove their case by legal argument and emotional appeal, and the anti-gay marriage side is resorting to religious arguments and fear tactics. Neither approach will produce a rational discussion. So it will simply be a lifestyle war, and the strongest side will win. That is not right.
Also, FWIW, the LDS are definitely the underdogs in this fight, they are a small minority in California, a small part of the vote. To say that they have out of state support is ingenuous, given the out of state support for the pro-gay marriage side. The fact is that you were soundly defeated by the underdog, your own polling showed this. This did not happen because they had more money or better ads. It happened because straight people do not understand gay people, and the ONLY solution to that is education, not intimidation, name calling, boycotts, and other pressure tactics.
Gays really do not understand straight people after all. – Kurt
What a profoundly stupid thing to say. Most gays have two straight parents, other straight relatives, straight friends. Hell, they even understand straights who are anti-gay bigots – they come across them often enough.
No Nick, that is not at all profoundly stupid, it is dead-on accurate. Having straight parents, friends, etc, does not lead to understanding of straight people by gays. By the same token you would have to argue that straight people who have gay children must therefore understand their gay children. Do you believe that is true? I know from experience it is patently FALSE in many cases.
This is the real heart of the matter, in my opinion, which is informed by experience. Many gay people in fact think they understand straights, but they do not. I believe that until gays learn how to educate straights about their situation, they will never win.
By the same token you would have to argue that straight people who have gay children must therefore understand their gay children. – Kurt
Not so at all – because many gays spend much of their lives concealing the crucial fact of their sexual orientation from their parents, siblings, friends. Straights seldom need to do this to their gay relatives or friends.
Keep trying Nick. I would agree that gays are more familiar with the beliefs and habits of straights due to their usually growing up with straights. However, even in cases where the gay person does not conceal their orientation, or later in life in cases where the family bonds remain strong, there still is a lack of understanding. And that is made more obvious by the backlash right now against people who voted against gay marriage.
It just does not work, gays really do not understand straights any better than straights understand gays because each type of brain functions differently. Yes, you are right about many gays understandably concealing their sexual orientation, but that is not universal, and after they come out of the closet their straight friends and family can never know what it is really like to be gay.
Kurt #1043 wrote:
Because the majority already agrees with the basic ideas and principles behind the case to be made for civil gay marriage. They are allowing their religious beliefs to blind them to their own values. Just as they would not want sharia laws imposed on them, they should not do a similar thing to another. Civil marriages should not have to obey religious guidelines.
This wasn’t straight vs. gay. It was secularists vs. theocrats. Many Christians who are against gay marriage, and believe that being gay is a sin still voted against Proposition 8. Why? Because they understood that they are both American citizens and Christians. As American citizens, they should not deny fair rights to minorities just because they don’t like them. And, as Christians, it is not their duty to try to prevent other people from committing sins by instituting legal measures. It is their duty to try to prevent other people from committing sins by helping them to convert to Christianity, so that they may be changed in their hearts.
At least, that is how I, an atheist, understand it.
Catholic churches, Mormon churches, and evangelical churches all poured money and power and religious justification into passing a law that revoked rights for a despised minority. To call them “the underdogs” here is puzzling. I don’t see how you can have it both ways — the majority spoke, but they were the underdogs.
Kurt, one of the Redhead’s high school classmates, a great clarinetist and pianist, was gay. He told his parents, and his father’s reaction was so intense the poor teenager killed himself. That reaction on the part of the father is not atypical. You have no idea on how bad many gays have it once they come out. They are often tossed out of house and home, and disowned. Fortunately, the severe stigma that used to be on gays is lessening, and one day may go away. Until you understand the level discrimination gays face, your comments sound bigotted. All gays want is to be accepted the way god made them.
If gay people understood straights, they would understand that revulsion to gay lifestyles is natural for straights. It is not a form of bigotry or hatred or homophobia. It is not learned. It is just the way straights are designed, it is in THEIR genes, it natural for straights.
For the gay community now to single out a minority religion that happens to have some clout, is just sour grapes at losing the vote. Are you incensed that some other group can manipulate the media better than the gays? This whole backlash is juvenile. Get into the 21st century for crying out loud.
There will be another day, another vote, another judicial decision, this will drag on, and on, and on, until someone with some influence realizes that the missing ingredient is not a lack of funds, pressure tactics, or lobbying influence. The missing ingredient is understanding.
If I were to advise the gay community on how to win this, it would be to start a long-term PR campaign to educate the public about what it is like to be gay, about what it means to have a committed relationship, about what it is to be a minority denied equal marriage rights.
Every political action the gays take can and will be countered. There can not be a political victory for a problem that at its core is a lack of understanding. This is an educational problem, not a political problem. Win the educational battle, and the political battle will also be won.
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008
If gay people understood straights, they would understand that revulsion to gay lifestyles is natural for straights. It is not a form of bigotry or hatred or homophobia. It is not learned. It is just the way straights are designed, it is in THEIR genes, it natural for straights.
Yay! It is the gay panic defense! The straights cannot help it. Those faggots are just too disgusting. I will remember to tell straight people who are not homophobes that they should be running in horror from me.
This may be a bit simple, but civil rights are not up to elections.
The single dumbest thing I’ve read this week.
Until you can convince a majority that gay marriage is a civil right, it IS up to elections. But would be far simpler to convince straights.
And this is not a gay panic defense, it is not a defense at all, it is just the way things are. And illustrates my point that gays do not understand straights. How ironic, the gay community insisting they are genetically gay and then denying the possibility that some people really are naturally turned off by gays. That is exactly what gays do NOT understand about straights, no matter how many they have been around.
The straight people you talk about who are not homophobes have decided not to be homophobes, they are more ‘enlightened’ but most of them did not start that way. And my point is that this is what is required, education of straights. Not by being dramatic and throwing tantrums, but by being rational and presenting clear explanations of what life is like being gay.
Kurt, the first rule of holes is when it gets too deep, stop digging. Time to stop digging. Your bigotry is showing.
If gay people understood straights, they would understand that revulsion to gay lifestyles is natural for straights. It is not a form of bigotry or hatred or homophobia. It is not learned. It is just the way straights are designed, it is in THEIR genes, it natural for straights. – Kurt
Good grief. Don’t you know anything about the many cultures that have accepted homosexual behaviour? Look up the “Sacred Band” of Thebes for a starting point.
Kurt the “majority” didn’t approve of interracial marriage either.
Stupidity is often a majority opinion.
” If gay people understood straights, they would understand that revulsion to gay lifestyles is natural for straights. It is not a form of bigotry or hatred or homophobia. It is not learned. It is just the way straights are designed, it is in THEIR genes, it natural for straights.
Rev…> The single dumbest thing I’ve read this week.
Oh really? And what evidence do you have that this is false? Have you been inside a straight person who was repulsed by homosexuality? I can not understand why gay people who are repulsed by the idea of sex with a member of the opposite gender can not make the mental connection that straight people are naturally repulsed by the idea of sex with someone of the same gender. Do you honestly believe that straight people who feel that their form of marriage is under attack are psychopaths? Get real, they are living what is natural and normal to them, just as a gay person is.
Kurt, stop digging yourself into the bigotry hole. Most of us got beyond our fear of gays years ago. Why can’t you? Do you have a hangup about gay feelings? Many of those with latent feelings tend to be the most vocal bigots. As I said, time to stop digging and just quit posting.
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008
And this is not a gay panic defense, it is not a defense at all, it is just the way things are. And illustrates my point that gays do not understand straights. How ironic, the gay community insisting they are genetically gay and then denying the possibility that some people really are naturally turned off by gays.
Damn, I have to let all the straight people I know who are not homophobic that there is something wrong with them. It is in THEIR GENES! They should be sickened but they are not.
Funny how reality is not conforming to Kurt’s mindset.
damn uppity gays…
Kurt, news flash, marriage isn’t about sex.
Kurt really is setting the stupid bar to heretofore unseen levels.
I’m straight. I don’t feel any revulsion at all towards homosexual behavior — it doesn’t particularly interest me, and that’s all. What two men or two women do together does not influence in the slightest what I find stimulating about heterosexual behavior.
Do you find yourself repulsed, as a heterosexual man, by what heterosexual women find arousing? Viva la difference, I should think. There are all kinds of sexual behaviors, some that I don’t like at all, some that I seek out…and my menu of turn-ons will be different than someone else’s. If you are repulsed by the fact that we don’t have a uniformity of desire in all people, then you need to move to a different planet.
Kurt,
What makes you think gays in general are “repulsed by the idea of sex with a member of the opposite gender”? Even for those who are repulsed by that idea for themselves, why do you think they would be repulsed by the idea of two other people of opposite genders having sex? I’m straight – I don’t fancy other men. For myself, the idea of sex with another man is a turn-off. But I don’t find the idea of two other men, or two women, having sex with each other, repulsive. If you have weird hangups of this kind, please don’t project them onto other people, OK? It’s not nice.
Steve, I agree that the majority can be stupid, and maybe that is the case with gay marriage, but depends on who you ask. Why can’t you people get this point? This is not about civil rights, it is about understanding, and the lack of it in the conservative straight community. The civil rights issue will not make sense to the conservative straight community until they understand homosexuality better. They have some totally wrong views about it.
Nerd, Bigotry? IS that some type of debate tactic? Do you think my argument that the gay marriage movement should be using educational tactics right now instead of political name calling shows some type of bigotry?
Kurt, anything that deprives a class of people from full civil rights is bigotry. So opposition to gay marriage is bigotry. Deal with it.
Have you been inside a straight person who was repulsed by homosexuality?
I’ll take “Maybe there was a better way to put that” for 800, Alex.
Wow you just keep getting dumber.
First I’m not gay.
Second While I’m not attracted to men or sex with men I am not repulsed by the idea of two men loving each other, getting married or even raising children nor them having sex. Yes man and man sex isn’t something I’m attracted to but that doesn’t mean that their lifestyle (whatever the hell that means) repulses me.
The thing that is very apparent by your post is that you like others of your type are focused on the sex much more than anyone who thinks rationally about he situation. As a married person I can verify that sex is but a part of marriage. This is about the rights of people to be treated equally under the law and be joined as partners in the same way that every other free person in this country can be.
Dislike of a them is a learned response. It is not “in their genes”. Claiming that it is is hilarious.
Um no you made the claim that homophobia is a genetic trait you need to prove it.
The fact that someone is repulsed by two people loving each other is what is repulsive.
Kurt. They believe on a religious foundation that gays are an abomination…
You can’t argue with that. You can only fight that stupidity. Prop 8 was based on fear, ignorance and bigotry.
Not because straights think gay sex is icky.
You’re argument is stupid. The gays are fighting for there rights and equal treatment under the law. Prop 8 denies equal treatment. We did away with separate but equal along time ago.
OK, so if I disagree with any of the rhetoric, I must:
A) be a closet gay and thus an outspoken bigot
B) not really understand what straight or gay people think
Get a grip people. I know many gay people, have a gay sibling, and have my own hangups. I am in a good position to say what I am saying, and I believe it is accurate.
Gays do NOT understand straights, and they may win a few battles, but will not win this war until they learn to teach rather than contend with their opponents.
Kurt #1050 wrote:
Uh — I don’t think “revulsion against gay lifestyles” is necessarily a natural response on the part of heterosexuals. It may be a natural response for some heterosexuals. And exaggerated responses could very well be culturally learned.
However, let’s grant that, for the sake of argument, you’re at least partially correct. Recent studies on subliminal or subconscious racial attitudes have demonstrated that people from both races tend to instinctively associate positive properties with white faces, and negative properties with black ones. It appears to be true even for people who sincerely believe themselves to be without racial prejudice. Whether this is genetic or cultural — or both — is hard to parse out. There also appears to be a strong propensity to pick partners who look like you. So there may be a natural tendency for straights (especially straight males) to feel repulsed by the details of male sodomy. An instinctive “ick” response.
So what? I don’t think this matters to the argument. Many — or at least some heterosexuals — are “turned off” by the idea of gay sex. Or sex with someone of another race. But not everyone who doesn’t find sex of a certain kind appealing wants to ban it. Many people are perfectly comfortable letting icky couples do icky things when it comes to sex, love, and marriage. I have always rather assumed that gay couples find heterosexuality a turn off. I don’t call that bigotry. I doubt they would consider it bigotry either.
What makes the difference? Add in religion, and turn it into Natural Law. You run into conflict with civil liberties when people take their natural tastes as a sign of what Nature “intends.” They have a God-given instinct which translates into a God-given mandate. Black people repel them. God must have made them inferior. They have intuitions that anal sex is gross. God must forbid it.
So “education of straights” on what it is like to be gay will make no inroads against a religious argument. The only way to deal with a religious argument is to
1.) insist that the government is secular, the society contains people of all faiths and none, and therefore views which are grounded in religious ‘insights’ must remain in religious venues
2.) undermine religion, decimate its arguments, and take away public respect for it
Or both.
This wasn’t straight vs. gay. It was secularists vs. theocrats. Many Christians who are against gay marriage, and believe that being gay is a sin still voted against Proposition 8. Why? Because they understood that they are both American citizens and Christians. As American citizens, they should not deny fair rights to minorities just because they don’t like them. And, as Christians, it is not their duty to try to prevent other people from committing sins by instituting legal measures. It is their duty to try to prevent other people from committing sins by helping them to convert to Christianity, so that they may be changed in their hearts.
I agree entirely (albeit that I don’t personally view homosexual conduct as sinful). I believe in a separation of law and morality; it isn’t the proper role of the state to impose religious or moral values on its citizens via the use of coercive force. Such things ought to be entirely a matter of individual conscience. I have no right to judge my neighbour for what relationships he chooses to enter into, or which god he chooses to worship. Whether I approve or not, I have no right to impose my will on him; and if I were to do so, I would be depriving him of his free moral choice, something to which every person is naturally entitled. Hence why I support same-sex civil marriage (albeit that I recognise the legitimacy of religious groups’ objections to it).
This is good evidence for why democracy, while valuable, is not the be-all and end-all of a political system. Even if the majority of people in a given jurisdiction believe in a certain religious doctrine or sectarian moral teaching, they have no right to impose it on everyone via the coercive agency of the state; which is why most constitutional systems, rightly, protect certain rights against the tyranny of the majority.
As a (broadly) consistent libertarian, I would argue that the same should also apply to property rights; even if the majority of people wish to nationalise my business or deprive me of my wealth, they should not be entitled to do so, any more than they can impose religious beliefs or moral standards on me. Everyone has a basic right to security and liberty of the person and property, limited only to the extent necessary to avoid interference with the security and liberty of others. This is why personal freedom and economic freedom ought to go hand in hand.
Kurt:
If you’re turned off by gay sex – so what? Just don’t download gay porn when you’re trying to get it on. How hard can that be?
Banning gay marriage can’t help you avoid this turn-off. It’s just a matter of self control.
How ironic, the gay community insisting they are genetically gay and then denying the possibility that some people really are naturally turned off by gays. – Kurt
The evidence that sexual orientation is largely innate derives from measurable differences in the brain; and the failure of attempts to “reprogram” gays. There is no equivalent evidence that homophobia is genetically influenced. See the difference? (I know the answer to that question, but what can you do?)
Kurt, either god made gay people gay, or god doesn’t exist and evolution likes gays since their aunts have more children.
People aren’t scared of gays, they are scared of the unknown. For those who can’t imagine what it’s like to be gay, the fear is understandable. But this isn’t the issue, the issue is whether they should have equal rights under the law. How is them getting married going to affect the marriages of heterosexual couples? To me, it’s about the same way as them having sex affects my ability to have a sexual relationship. i.e. not at all.
The problem is that the “moral” authorities think it’s in the best interest of society to push their view of reality on others. The mormons funding the church was a clear sign of religion interfering with the state, and they did it purely because they are an intolerant religion. Their argument amounts to “I have nothing against blacks, but marriage is between two white people as consecrated by God.” Just because you say you are tolerant, it doesn’t mean you are. The Mormons can preach they are tolerant until the cows come home, but while they are meddling in the affairs of the state to push their own agenda on a secular population, they cannot claim it.
Kurt, all you have to do to see the bigotry implicit in your claims is to replace ‘male marrying a male’ with ‘black male marrying a white female’ (or vice versa).
Every single ‘defence’ you have presented for why people fought so hard for Prop H8 is exactly the same as why they fought so hard to keep miscegenation laws on the books – their revulsion at something they’d been taught was wrong.
And it’s just as bigoted and wrong now as it was then.
Nick – yes, there is some research evidence of a genetic element in homophobia.
Verweij et al (2008) used the Australian Twins Registry (ATR) to examine whether there might be a genetic component to “negative attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality (homophobia)”. As many other studies have found, women were less likely to hold homophobic beliefs than men, but in contrast with previous studies, no significant effect of age was found. Additionally, the study concluded that homophobic attitudes were “substantially inherited” and that “social environmental influences are relatively minor.” However, the strongest effect size came from events outside the family home: “unique environment.”
“And it’s just as bigoted and wrong now as it was then.”
Ah, but until you can understand the mind of the bigot (who was born bigoted, of course), then it’s your fault that you don’t have rights.
Kurt,
Give the full reference please. Given the enormous changes in social attitudes over the past few decades, it’s hard to see how the claim of “substantial” genetic influence could possibly be supported.
The youth vote in California was overwhelming for gay marriage, far better than any other demographic. It’s not about being repulsed by gays or not, it’s about tolerating a different lifestyle choice.
Sastra says: So “education of straights” on what it is like to be gay will make no inroads against a religious argument. The only way to deal with a religious argument is to
1.) insist that the government is secular, the society contains people of all faiths and none, and therefore views which are grounded in religious ‘insights’ must remain in religious venues
2.) undermine religion, decimate its arguments, and take away public respect for it
Or both.
**Kurt says: I agree with much of what you said in that post, but disagree that religious arguments can not be defeated by reason and logic. So apparently that makes me a bigot in this discussion, people here are preaching to the choir, and are intolerant of different viewpoints, so who is the bigot? My point is simply that religious people WILL respond to rational, well-reasoned scientific presentation of facts, and that has not been done well by the pro-gay marriage community. The LDS church for example, a most conservative group, has changed their positions on other issues in the past, such as their exclusion of blacks from the priesthood. The Baptists also had to reverse their stand on blacks in many of their churches that were exclusively white until the 1960s. And now both are strong advocates for racial equality, in fact most members of the LDS church are now outside the US, many are in poor countries among varying ethnic groups. They changed, a lot. Trying to destroy religion as an institution just to get your way on a single political issue is delusional, in my opinion. Might as well kill off everyone who disagrees with you while you’re at it, hello, are we in reality here?
What I see happening in this issue is a form of premature politicization of gay marriage. You need to go back to the part of the political process where you make your case. The case has never been made in the public square, where are the public debates, the prime-time programs dissecting the issues from a scientific viewpoint, etc? This is just a big heated argument and will end the way they usually end, with nobody really winning.
Again, gays need to accept that they must go through the same process as everyone else when they want to change major social policies. Step 1: collect the facts, conduct the research, etc. Step 2: make a strong argument in the public square. Step 3: debate with your opponents and continue with 1-3 until the majority of people agree with you. Step 4: have a vote and change policies. You are trying to collectively skip right to the last step, so of course are just creating a battle. Do the due diligence and I believe you will win, because you have a better argument, but make the argument, not chaos.
And to those who say, ‘but we have argued in the public square’, lots of media portrayal of gays is not adequate. Will & Grace is nice, but it will not persuade people logically, at least not conservatives, blacks, etc.
Since when does that happen? Democracy is about winning popular support, not about being right. It’s only been a recent thing that homosexuality has been an acceptable lifestyle choice, and even then it’s still not accepted by a large minority. It’s got nothing to do with evidence.
Nick: For the full abstract on that study go to Pubmed and find abstract# 18347968
Also, another related study is #8772014, that one connects homophobia with homosexual arousal in people in denial. OK might look like that contradicts my argument, but actually given that homosexuality appears to have genetic elements, it actually is supportive.
Kel,
I agree, democracy is not exclusively about evidence. But evidence certainly can not hurt the cause. And besides, I am only trying to make one point, and that is that it is smarter, easier, and probably cheaper, to persuade people than to force them to change their views about this topic. Even strongly religious people will eventually be persuaded, there is already evidence of that as some of the more liberal religions have changed their views.
So if you want to persuade people, you need to go through that process, or something like it. And if people are persuaded, there will be little trouble getting laws passed.
But if you don’t care, and just want to duke it out until someone wins, fine, but personally I think that is a rather stupid approach when you have the better argument.
Kurt,
Do you really think the LDS and the Baptists changed their attitudes to race because of scientific evidence? How astoundingly naive! The Civil Rights movement, and anti-racist legislation, forced them into it: the costs of refusing to change were made too high, so they changed.
BTW, do you have the full reference to that paper? It’s bad form just to give first author name and date. It could even suggest to some people that you haven’t actually read the paper, and are just repeating something you’ve been told. I know, I know, no trust in the world these days, is there?
Kel,
I agree, democracy is not exclusively about evidence. But evidence certainly can not hurt the cause. And besides, I am only trying to make one point, and that is that it is smarter, easier, and probably cheaper, to persuade people than to demonize them and try to force them to change their behaviors. Even strongly religious people will eventually be persuaded, there is already evidence of that as some of the more liberal religions have changed their views.
So if you want to persuade people, you need to go through that process, or something like it. And if people are persuaded, there will be little trouble getting laws passed.
But if you don’t care, and just want to duke it out in the courts and blogs and press until someone wins, fine, but personally I think that is a rather stupid approach when you have the better argument.
The last thing that persuades people is evidence, how are you going to convince anyone who thinks homosexuality is an abomination to God that it’s an acceptable lifestyle choice? Social attitudes change over time through exposure and tolerance. We as a society tolerate homosexuality much better than 30 years ago, but there is still a long way to go. And it doesn’t help when people tie the issue to sin. What’s moral for one religion should not be imposed on a secular society; hence the outrage against the Mormons for interfering.
Ultimately we can’t force change and attitudes will do so on their own as there’s more exposure for that alternate way of life. But those organisations that stand in the way of change are always going to be vilified.
Kurt wrote:
You need to learn what bigotry is. It is not bigoted to oppose viewpoints. Paedophiles, for example, have the viewpoint that it’s okay for them to have sex with children. Do you think it’s bigoted to deny them that right?
Nick,
The LDS and Baptist churches usually follow social trends, they do not lead in them. And so they were responding to the entire change of the racial equality movements of the time. They also had to wait until the people in their congregations were ready to accept the blacks, and I believe both churches lost members when they changed policies regarding blacks.
I would not say they were forced to change as much as they were forced to accept the social changes around them. I was not intending to say that science played a major role in that, although re-reading maybe that is how it looked, but rather that even the most conservative religions eventually can change.
There’s a difference between them being against it and providing large amounts of money to go against it. They are actively shaping society with their influence. They may follow social trends, but they are doing their damn best to ensure this social trend doesn’t change.
Not really. It’s not really relevant to the point you’re making, but strictly, paedophiles are sexually attracted to children. Their attitude to their paraphilia — whether they consider it right or wrong — or whether they actually rape children or not doesn’t make them any more or less of a paedophile; it may, of course, make them more or less of a problem, or more or less of a criminal, but if they’re sexually attracted to children, they’re paedophiles. I don’t know anything about the psychopathology of paedophilia, but the definition as I understand it seems to admit the possibility that there are paedophiles who don’t have the viewpoint that it’s OK for them to have sex with children.
Kurt@1088,
Sure they can. And they’ll do exactly the same over gay rights when the percentage of anti-gay bigots in the population drops low enough. That will happen, but the way to speed it up, is to make it quite clear that that bigotry is not going to be accepted, and is going to cost those indulging in it. That’s what the Civil Rights movement did, that’s what LBJ (for all his evil Vietnam policy) did. That’s what turning the heat on the LDS is for – to make an example of them. They chose to make themselves a target, they’re going to bloody well regret it. Demos, lawsuits, letters to the papers, insults, mockery, being rude to their missionaries – any peaceful way to get it into their bigot-blocks that this was a big mistake.
Kurt, you can’t even reach out of hole with your shovel now. All your dirt you throw up is falling back down you. Rule one of holes. When you’re in too deep, stop digging. Take a break from posting here.
Bigotry = being intolerant of views that oppose yours. A bigot is a close-minded person. That is what is going on here with some responses (not all).
Nick, I agree with you on one point, the resistance to full gay rights by certain churches will probably stop once anti-gay sentiment diminishes enough in the general population. Do you really think that demos, lawsuits, letters, insults, mockery, being rude to missionaries, is the way to lower anti-gay sentiment in the population? Is that what worked in the civil rights movement? I remember civil rights as a mostly peaceful resistance movement, with legal demonstrations. What you are proposing sounds like something else. I think this type of behavior will only prolong the conflict that the gay movement is hatefully trying to start right now. A better approach would be to try and change the minds of people by presenting the facts intelligently, and presenting the science in a persuasive manner. That works for Madison Avenue, and I believe it would work for this movement. How is that a bigoted viewpoint? I sense a lot of anger on this list, and rash responses to being disappointed. If people continue with that thinking, I think this will apply… You will sew what you reap. I am as far from bigoted as it gets on this issue, we have the same goal. I just see a different pathway to get there.
ok, I meant ‘you will reap what you sew.’ Brain is tired, I guess it is time for a break from this. Good luck everyone.
No, actually you didn’t.
Sew = attach using thread
Sow = put seeds of grain into the ground, which are reaped when they are ripe
Bigotry = being intolerant of views that oppose yours. – Kurt
WRONG! If someone says to me “Jews are evil, they should all be killed”, you bet your fucking LIFE I’m going to be intolerant about it. If you think that’s bigotry, you’re at best a halfwit. You also appear to have problems with reading comprehension: I specified “peaceful means”. (Although incidentally, if you don’t remember what an impact the riots of the late ’60s had in advancing the civil rights cause, you weren’t around or you have a very selective memory.) And calling “bigotry” because you’re losing the argument is just contemptible.