Naperville Student Sues For Right To Homobigotry
I like to contextualize things and draw comparisons when it comes to the various forms of bigotry. It helps to sort things out and make them digestible. When I call Porno Pete's outfit(s) 'hate organizations' people ask how it is a 'pro-family, Christian organization' can be a hate organization. Simple answer - I've explained it before. Take any bit of Labarbera spew, replace "homosexual" with "black" or "Mexican" and you'd have a certified hate monger. Example:
Or every time Labarbera says "AIDS is a tragic result of the homosexual lifestyle" just think to yourself that "Cirrhosis is a result of the Irish lifestyle". Both have the same merit when you get down to the facts of it all. Get it? Good. You can push that in a couple of different directions and I assure you, it doesn't always come out the way you think it will, thus it's a very good rule of thumb when playing Know Your Bigot. Christo Con fruitloops will regularly decry this sort of stuff as being part of "the oppression of political correctness", or do something typically Limbaughesque and blame the ACLU for the fact that they're not longer allowed to use derogatory slurs. It's a psuedo intellectual approach to fight for their right to be non-intellectual, primitive, NASCAR watchers.
Riddle me this: Is this shirt appropriate in school?
You can read the relevant story at World Nut Daily, but the nut of it:
Fine. You caught me. I added the last part in there. Sue me.
The racial comparison works out pretty well because it reduces this sort of discussion to the "Black people can use the N word, so why can't I", "Well, Notre Dame's mascot is the Fighting Irish, isn't that racist?", and other assorted arguments you hear from privileged white folks who are pissed about ideas of equality. After all, who wants to bet that the same people who don't like the idea of a Day of Silence are the same folks who probably object to Black History Month in school? You need not look far for that argument to be made by Random Winger:
That particular post comes complete with threats of violence in the comments:
It's fair to put homobigotry and racism next to each other. They're both irrational, mostly dependent upon a fear of something different, and almost always veiled in self-defense against some vast agenda. It's not a coincidence that the same evangelical southern minded folks who were 'protecting the Christian identity' 75 years ago when opposing civil rights for black folks have no moved on to 'protecting the Christian identity' today by opposing civil rights for queer folks.
To be expected, the usual suspects in wingnutitude are up in arms over the matter, claiming it's a violation of the First Amendment. Of course, it isn't.
The narrow minded bigots will argue that "Well, the gay kids are allowed to wear their pride gear, all this girl is showing her straight pride", which lacks any intellectual honesty. If we have an Irish Pride Day and every girl from Mt. Greenwood wears a "Kiss me, I'm Irish shirt" it's showing pride. If an Italian kid wears a shirt on the same day saying "Proud Italian" it's showing pride. If our Italian kid wears a shirt that says "The Irish are a bunch of thick skulled, flat assed drunkards" it's bigotry and has no business in modern society let alone public schools. The same goes for if on our Irish Pride Day, Mt. Greenwood girl wears a shirt that says "Italians are wine drinking, mobster, murdering WOPs".
Likewise, if a gay person decides to wear a shirt emblazoned with this, it's ok:
It doesn't prevent a student from wearing this on the same day, and in fact - it's reasonable to do so and nobody would ever object contrary to the knee jerkers:
But it does make wearing something like this completely unreasonable:
It's equally as acceptable to wear something like this:
Simple enough concept to understand, you would think. But no. A sample of actual bigot quotes. For fun, replace references to LGBT with references to 'Mexican':
Return of the Conservatives:
From the Ground Up:
The Wake Up Call (this one is good)
Chicago Ray:
Illinois’ only openly homosexual representative, Democrat Greg Harris, has introduced HB 1615, which would repeal Illinois’ ban on same-sex “marriages.” Pete LaBarbera of the Chicago-based group Americans for Truth says Harris and other homosexual activists are hoping to wear down Illinois voters, and over time pass what he describes as “radical” legislation.
Illinois’ black representative, Democrat Greg Harris, has introduced HB 1615, which would repeal Illinois’ ban on interracial “marriages.” Pete LaBarbera of the Chicago-based group Americans for Truth (about the black lifestyle) says Harris and other black activists are hoping to wear down Illinois voters, and over time pass what he describes as “radical pro-black” legislation.
Or every time Labarbera says "AIDS is a tragic result of the homosexual lifestyle" just think to yourself that "Cirrhosis is a result of the Irish lifestyle". Both have the same merit when you get down to the facts of it all. Get it? Good. You can push that in a couple of different directions and I assure you, it doesn't always come out the way you think it will, thus it's a very good rule of thumb when playing Know Your Bigot. Christo Con fruitloops will regularly decry this sort of stuff as being part of "the oppression of political correctness", or do something typically Limbaughesque and blame the ACLU for the fact that they're not longer allowed to use derogatory slurs. It's a psuedo intellectual approach to fight for their right to be non-intellectual, primitive, NASCAR watchers.
Riddle me this: Is this shirt appropriate in school?
You can read the relevant story at World Nut Daily, but the nut of it:
An Illinois high school student is in federal court seeking the right to wear T-shirts that declare sentiments such as "Be happy, not gay."
Heidi Zamecnik, of the Chicago suburb Naperville, wants to wear the shirt at school the day after the "Day of Silence," a nationwide observance April 19 to protest harassment of homosexuals in schools, the Chicago Sun-Times reported. This just continues the cycle of anti-Christian oppression and pro-homosexual indoctrination of our children in the evil public school system which is part of the Homosexual Agenda (TM). The next step will be for public high school administrators to sprinkle magic dust to make your kids gay. According to J. Matt Barber of Concerned Women For Americans For Truth, the dust, dubbed 'fairy dust', has already been distributed to public high schools by the ACLU and former members of the Clinton administration.
Fine. You caught me. I added the last part in there. Sue me.
The racial comparison works out pretty well because it reduces this sort of discussion to the "Black people can use the N word, so why can't I", "Well, Notre Dame's mascot is the Fighting Irish, isn't that racist?", and other assorted arguments you hear from privileged white folks who are pissed about ideas of equality. After all, who wants to bet that the same people who don't like the idea of a Day of Silence are the same folks who probably object to Black History Month in school? You need not look far for that argument to be made by Random Winger:
Now, everyone KNOWS the homosexuals in school get to wear their ‘Gay Pride” shirts.. so what about her rights? I remember (way back, ahem) when I was a teen in highschool, we were told we couldn’t wear any shirt with the Confederate flag on it, but black kids could still wear their MalcomX (talk about racist!).. NOT fair.. NOT right!
That particular post comes complete with threats of violence in the comments:
This *** stuff is wearing on me, they’re going to create REAL hate. They think bigotry and intolerance is bad now? Give it some time and more of this kind of stuff…
It's fair to put homobigotry and racism next to each other. They're both irrational, mostly dependent upon a fear of something different, and almost always veiled in self-defense against some vast agenda. It's not a coincidence that the same evangelical southern minded folks who were 'protecting the Christian identity' 75 years ago when opposing civil rights for black folks have no moved on to 'protecting the Christian identity' today by opposing civil rights for queer folks.
To be expected, the usual suspects in wingnutitude are up in arms over the matter, claiming it's a violation of the First Amendment. Of course, it isn't.
The narrow minded bigots will argue that "Well, the gay kids are allowed to wear their pride gear, all this girl is showing her straight pride", which lacks any intellectual honesty. If we have an Irish Pride Day and every girl from Mt. Greenwood wears a "Kiss me, I'm Irish shirt" it's showing pride. If an Italian kid wears a shirt on the same day saying "Proud Italian" it's showing pride. If our Italian kid wears a shirt that says "The Irish are a bunch of thick skulled, flat assed drunkards" it's bigotry and has no business in modern society let alone public schools. The same goes for if on our Irish Pride Day, Mt. Greenwood girl wears a shirt that says "Italians are wine drinking, mobster, murdering WOPs".
Likewise, if a gay person decides to wear a shirt emblazoned with this, it's ok:
It doesn't prevent a student from wearing this on the same day, and in fact - it's reasonable to do so and nobody would ever object contrary to the knee jerkers:
But it does make wearing something like this completely unreasonable:
It's equally as acceptable to wear something like this:
Simple enough concept to understand, you would think. But no. A sample of actual bigot quotes. For fun, replace references to LGBT with references to 'Mexican':
Return of the Conservatives:
It's no wonder with these leftist teachers so engaged in spreading the deviant lifestyle that that they object to having to provide a PE class. After all, what is more important to them: children's physical health or them being indoctrinated by the Rosie O'Donnell Idiot Brigade?
From the Ground Up:
The Gay Left's allies in academia are out to censor free speech in public schools all under the guise of "tolerance." The Dean has no balls to do the right thing.
The Wake Up Call (this one is good)
Once again, we see the pro-gay bias in our mis-education system. Maybe we need a straight rights coalition in this country.
Chicago Ray:
It's apparently OK to force a "Day of Awareness/Silence" upon all non-gay public school students annually on April 19th nationwide to stop the supposed "widespread harassment" of that whopping 2 or 3 percent of the students who think they're gay, meanwhile a non-gay student representing the other 97 or so percent of students who are not gay cannot wear a t-shirt to school like this protesting this mandated day of atonement:
63 comments:
This is where at times some conservatives lose me when they make strange arguments about equality. I disagreed when they painted Obama's church as black supremacist or separatist. On another blog a blogger was upset that Michelle said her husband would be more likley to get shot at a gas station.
Well I'm off base here. I think while moral issues are important the problem is how you talk about them. I get emails from another anti-gay marriage group that brings up this said stat rep. Greg Harris has HIV. And I want to know what the relevance of that is. You can disagree with him if you want but why bring up his medical problems does that make those guys look like they're on the right side of the issue.
Oh and I had no idea Illinois still has a ban on interracial marriage. I thought that went out with a lot of things way back when.
The difference is that being BLACK is an inherent skin color and homosexuality is an activity.
Many Christians are harrassed in schools, work and universities yet have no protection because their free speech is considered behavior and bad for others.
Replace the word Black or Mexican or Chinese with Conservative or Christian in your diatribes and see the result. You dehumanize and demean Christians. You minimize legitimate discussion on issues of human sexuality, which may or may not be inherent and have legitimate differences from race.
@Levois:
Illinois doesn't have a ban on interracial marriage to my knowledge. I was just parsing the example to something we've acclimated to over the years, vs something that we haven't.
The point I'm trying to get at here, is that there are vast similarities between how anti-black folks in the legacy of racism over the last 200 years operated then vs. how anti-gay folks operate now.
Saying "there's a conspiracy amongst radical black people to force your daughters to have bi-racial kids" and saying "there's a conspiracy amongst radical homosexuals to force your kids to be gay" is the exact same thing.
@Cindy:
Nice try, but why don't we all agree to get back to reality.
The difference is that being BLACK is an inherent skin color and homosexuality is an activity.
Fine. I'll entertain that argument for the time being. It's complete bullshit, but I'll play along:
How does the hate speech of 'pro-family' groups differ from the hate speech of 'pro-christian white identity' group's hate speech of the post Civil war era?
Many Christians are harrassed in schools, work and universities yet have no protection because their free speech is considered behavior and bad for others.
Bullshit. Show me ONE example where a Christian has been targeted for wearing a cross or a WWJD wrist band. Quit pretending like there's still an anti-Christian bent.
You dehumanize and demean Christians. You minimize legitimate discussion on issues of human sexuality,
More bullshit. You give a single legitimate non-religious talking point about why you're against gay marriage, one that can stand up against realistic scrutiny of public policy. Show me one legitimate reason without talking about your particular perverted version of Jesus. Consider it an open challenge.
And if you feel like I 'demean' or 'dehumanize' what ever it is you call a 'Christian', you'll probably be surprised to find out that I'm a Roman Catholic and a god fearing Conservative. I demean and dehumanize hate mongers. Don't want to get put in that category? Stop being a hate monger. Because holding up ignorance for ridicule is the right thing to do - and it's the conservative thing to do.
You can't. Because there isn't a single good reason. Nobody has ever been able to do it. Nobody ever will be able to do it. Which is why the anti-gay knuckle draggers are losing time and time again.
DanL--if you are a Roman Catholic and a G-d fearing conservative--have you read your Catechism on homosexuality? The current Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church? or any of the other catechisms or official magisterial pronouncements? or maybe the Bible?
Yes. I've read it.
Why?
Your Eminence,
I know a deeply committed Pro-Lifer who took his frustrations over Roe V. Wade by punching his tiny wife around - wore the tiny feet on every lapel he had. He could parse catechism with Tommy Aquinas Himself - he's still a Gold plated A%^hole.
I think what Dan is concerned with is how people are treated - that's covered pretty well in Holy Writ.
http://www.catholicleague.org/
The statements of Rosie O'Donnell, kids getting suspended from School, different financing for schools and non profits--no it may not be the anti-Kennedy anti Catholicism of 1960 nor KKK or No Nothings fighting with Irish or burning cathedrals or convents--but anti-Catholicism is alive and well--gay activitists who disrupt masses and desecrate the Host.
UNIVERSAL CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:
"Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. "
DANIEL--MAYBE YOU ARE NOT A PRACTICING ROMAN CATHOLIC NOR A CONSERVATIVE?
IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH A HATE GROUP? IS THE CATECHISM OR THE BIBLE A HATE BOOK? SHOULD IT BE BANNED?
Once again, a perfect example of the Christo Cons complete inability to develop an actual argument against gay marriage without bringing up Jesus.
Spencer,
That is true as well.
The problems come from from coalitions of folks who have their particular ox being gored refusing to distance themselves from the actions of those who help take that hoofed beast to market for them.
Having three children, I know for certain that of the four of us the only who is not gay is their old man. I hope that I behave accordingly.
Jimmy-
Couldn't you have simply given the link:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp
instead of copy & pasting the whole thing. Or at least have given credit to those who wrote the original. Better yet just have shortened it to 'God says homos are wrong'. Don't make us read a bunch of tripe just to get to your point.
Nicely put, Gish.
@fulton:
Ohhhhh I love this stuff. Thanks for taking the bait.
DANIEL--MAYBE YOU ARE NOT A PRACTICING ROMAN CATHOLIC NOR A CONSERVATIVE?
IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH A HATE GROUP? IS THE CATECHISM OR THE BIBLE A HATE BOOK? SHOULD IT BE BANNED?
So let me get this straight. Because I believe in individual freedoms, that my personal faith should not extend to governmental policy, and that I stand up for a group group of perfectly normal/perfectly healthy folks who might otherwise be Christian and true conservative, I'm not a good Christian nor am I a true conservative?
Therefore, in order to be a good Christian and a true conservative, you must continue to trample the downtrodden, forcefeed everyone Christian moral thinking through public policy, and generally exclude everyone from both tents who doesn't agree with you exclusively, lest be cast out as a heretic right?
If you don't feel like responding to either of those questions, I'll understand. You done got smoked like a Marlboro.
The fact of the matter is, nowhere in true Conservative philosophy or ideology does it encourage this Christianist anti-people crap. Just the opposite. One of the basic fundamental principles of conservative philosophy is the sort of mindset which encourages and fosters governmental non-involvement in a wide variety of personal beliefs and philosophies. In fact, actual conservative doctrine is silent on these matters. There's a reason why prior to the 80's/90's there were several gay republican organizations, most of which now federated under the Log Cabin banner.
In other words conservative philosophy has recently become perverted to reflect supposed Christian values rather than allow freedom for people to hold Christian values. That's your mistake. It's cool. Common misunderstanding.
As for Catholic catechism on the matter, that's fine. It's wrong. But I guess some gay catholics have to figure out how to negotiate their own faith against their sexual orientation.
As for me, advocating public policy that does not keep civil rights from those who deserve it, it's an extraordinarily Christian virtue.
Of course, if you don't think standing up for what's right and good is Christian.....perhaps you need to do some reconsideration of your own philosophy.
Ask yourself this: Would Jesus stand up for gay folks?
I killed Jimmy's post. Those of you curious may visit this site for the post.
===The difference is that being BLACK is an inherent skin color and homosexuality is an activity.
Actually, most evidence is that homosexuality is something that can't be changed--other than the strangely unsuccessful group of ex-gays who keep getting caught. More than that, it's behavior between two consenting adults and as such is irrelevant to their participation in society.
Why would we allow discrimination based on something that is irrelevant to one's participation in society?
---Many Christians are harrassed in schools, work and universities yet have no protection because their free speech is considered behavior and bad for others.
No protection? Are you kidding me? The federal non-discrimination statutes and as far as I know, every state's statutes outlaw discrimination based upon religion.
How anyone can be this ignorant of the law is beyond me. And, in fact, Jay Sekulow takes on all sorts of cases like these on a frequent basis as does the ACLU (the horrors, I know).
Christians are dominant in the United States and so there is very little discrimination--there is some, but not nearly the amount that the whines of conservative Christians claim. It's a useful tool for galvanizing anger, but it has little to do with reality.
Dan-
By removing Jimmy's post, you make what I thought was the humor in my post that much harder to see. Oh well, it was insanely long.
As to actually posting something more relevant to your post, I am troubled in this debate. I hate to see limitations on speech even when I strongly disagree with it. My question is how and where do we stop logically extending out its application. I am afraid of the 'slippery slope' even if I question its existence.
Do we ban shirts with swastikas? If so, do we also ban other groups which espouse 'hate' i.e Nation of Islam? Who decides what level/confidence of hate do we use? Who decides?
Maybe that is a poor example, hopefully someone can see where I start to question the possible 'gray area'.
Dan L - thanks for this post. It says so beautifully many of the things I always try to say. I don't understand why people who claim to be moral christians continue to support a posiiton of hate and discrimination. I personally don't care what the catholic articles say. In 50 years we will look back at this and realize how stupid these opinions were. You are right Dan, it is simply racism several decades behind in the time line. I am sure many of the more elderly bloggers remember a time when idiot christians quoted scripture as a reason to support slavery. Whys that? Because its there. Along with tons of other completely insane shit. Theres a great joke floating around out there about someone calling into a christian talk show asking how to deal with all the situations from the old testament. Christians really need to remove their heads from their asses and realize they are wrong. Its ok though. You can go to confessional and get forgiven for being so stupid. And that total BS about homosexuality being a choice is just stupid.
Gish, I know where you're coming from. One of the reasons I was slow on commentary about this was deciding whether or not this is an actual legitimate freedom of speech issue.
It's actually quite a challenge. I'm a firm believer in taking freedom of speech to it's most extreme. That includes swastikas, burning the American flag, and the confederate flag. However, whether or not it's appropriate in school is the actual question.
That's also part of the reason I sit on the fence on hate speech legislation - if only because it's awfully tough to determine whether or not speech incites violence. On the other hand, in the case of somebody like Porno Peter LaBarbera it's quite clear that he does incite violence against queer folk. , which is why I tend to be ok with a hair o' censorship in public schools.
Again - if the student were wearing the "arrest black babies before they become criminals" shirt, you would have no difficulty supporting it as covered under the First, but I think we can all agree it's completely inappropriate in a school environment.
You're right. It's a gray area entirely. That's kind of why instead of actually talking about the freedom of speech issue, I wrote this into a post about how similar the anti-black Klansman/Skinhead movement and the rabidly anti-gay types.
In a future post, I'll be detailing just how similar Christians and Gay folks are - I'm sure there are some people here on Illinoize who are going to shit razor blades when they read that.
@Robbie - Thanks. It's unpopular to be a pro-gay conservative. Imagine how much it would suck to be an actually gay conservative with cats like Fulton Sheen running around telling you that you can be neither a christian nor a conservative simply based on what you do in your bedroom.
Cindy Byron wrote: "Many Christians are harrassed in schools, work and universities"
My suggestion is that you link to "many" recent news items so that your argument isn't so easily undermined. Otherwise, when you come on here and make a bold statement like that, expect to be challenged.
Spencer wrote "different financing for schools and non profits" was evidence of anti Catholicism. I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm a Lutheran, which is a religion with lots of schools that aren't funded by the state. Does that make the state anti-Lutheran as well? And if so, doesn't that undermine your comparison to the "burning cathedrals or convents" argument?
Plenty of synagogues also have schools that aren't directly funded by the state. How would that fit in with your allegations that today's actions are just slightly removed from the KKK?
For stories of discrimination against Catholics check out:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/03/discrimination_against_catholi/all.html
There has been direct financing of religious institutions, even Missionary work from the time of the founding of this country. Many Public schools had King James Versions of the Bible and the Lords Prayer Protestant version. While Lutherans may also not get government funding, vouchers or other funding, the reasons why is anti-Catholicism and a reverse application of the establishment clause.
I think that Rich Miller and Dan L have misrepresented the arguments of people of faith and who do not fully agree with the political homosexual agenda. Disagreeing with one poster does not mean being part of a hate group. Being a traditional Christian or other traditional spiritual perspective is not being part of a hate group nor is it part of a specific political group in Illinois that says mean spirited things, as I am not a member or agree with the approach of some of the individuals or groups you cite, but I do believe that homosexuality is a sin, and even the orientation could be an intrinsic disorder (as did the American Psychiatric Association did until the 70s without a change in science and as do most cultures still), that does not mean discrimination in the sense of jobs or housing but it does not mean I need to agree that a homosexual union is the same as the so called "traditional" family under the law or I or anyone else have to morally accept it. The law protects people from murder and battery, as in the awful case of Matthew Sheperd. The crimes committed against him have always been on the books eg murder or aggravated battery that lead to murder or whatever other charges are appropriate. The culture that lead to this or other murders and violence against homosexuals is not because or caused by Christians, Roman Catholics traditional or otherwise, Boy Scouts, or even Pat Robertson (although I do not agree with him on many things).
There are logical and well thought out reasons for limitations on human sexuality, prohibitions on homosexual behavior and identification of orientation(s) through psychological, scientific, medical and theological/philosophical lens(es) by the Catholic/Christian tradition(s) as well as other traditions. Many homosexuals have a pan sexuality and very hedonistic approach and this is or at least seems to be intrinsic to the nature and support and individuals and groups involved with the political homosexual movement.
There have been pastors in Norway who cannot preach the Bible and traditional Lutheran teachings on homosexuality. There are laws in Canada that do the same. There are interpretations of the Human Rights laws here in Illinois, different than the assurances given to some legislators, that could tell religious institutions who to hire or not fire or discipline vis a vis their teachings on human sexuality and specifically homosexuality.
Remember that it is not only Catholicism or Evangelical "fundamentalist" crazy Christians that have prohibitions on homosexual behavior and believe that marriage by definition is inherently between a man and a woman but also
Tibetan Buddhists and comments by the Dalai Lama that homosexual behavior was a psycho-sexual disorder.
Martin Luther King Jr.'s son who said that the Civil Rights movement is not the same as the Gay Rights movement with many distinctions--Jesse Jackson Sr. while certainly supportive of gay rights at this point also points out the differences.
Orthodox, AishTorah, Chabad, Haredi, Orthodox Sephardic, and even some Conservative Jews all have prohibitions on homosexuality, many with logical explanations and graciousness and logic. Check out
www.aish.com
www.askmoses.com
www.meaningfullife.com
There are many charitable, logical, and good discussions from perspectives of faith, love, and charity but truth and tradition in the Catholic world.
Check out
www.jimmyakin.org
Also some good stuff from the Eastern Orthodox perspective.
There is discrimination against people of religious faith, they should be protected by current protections but are not always or the protections are reversed or prioritized because of supposed discrimination against homosexuals etc. even prohbiting free speech and trying to affect belief. One earlier poster mentioned Jay Sekulow another mentioned the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights. It is not the same as the KKK nor per se slightly removed but there still is discrimination more in jobs, free speech, universities, and professions in the public arena. It is an oppression of belief and symbol and usually not against an individual just for an ethnic identification that has been culturally Catholic in the past.
Rich Miller talks about bold statements coming unchallenged but the only bold statements are by Dan who responds with BS every time someone raises a point and believes that any Catholic who believes in the official teachings of his faith is part of a hate group or hating or violating civil rights. This is demonizing Christians, conservatives, and Orthodox Catholics.
I had actually written out a lengthy response for you. But instead:
There are logical and well thought out reasons for limitations on human sexuality, prohibitions on homosexual behavior and identification of orientation(s) through psychological, scientific, medical and theological/philosophical lens(es) by the Catholic/Christian tradition(s) as well as other traditions.
Name one. That's all you ahve to do. Name one.
There is no scientific evidence that is conclusive that homosexuality is inherent or genetic. There have been cases of certain elements found in the brain enlarged for homosexuals or in greater amounts than heterosexuals or the population at large. However, there is no homosexual gene found. Moreover, if the homosexual gene was so dominant, it could not have been reproduced except through homosexuals who were not acting upon their supposed inherent inclination. This does not mean that I do not think there are not genetic explanations at least in part but for many homosexuals or those practicing homosexual behavior there could be environmental factors and thus those factors could be perceived as negative or warping of the more natural heterosexual identity.
On an ancedotal note, as well as some evidence (but I won't cite the Focus on the Family stuff here), and previous psychological (secular non or even anti religious Fredian) texts talk about dominant mother, absence of a father, early pyscho-sexual development.
You can usually identify if someone is Black or Chinese but it is not automatically evident if one is a homosexual. Homosexuality is usually defined by self identification (whether by "choice" or if it is "genetic") or behavior/activity/certain specific acts and lastly the identification with/in a geographic and/or cultural community eg a "gay neighborhood".
There is something obviously natural about a man and a woman and the procreative act (outsides science like in vitro, cloning etc) can only be done and even with the more "articifical" with male and female--whether through the sex act or through science.
The notion of the traditional family is not a bad nor negative one but one that with all it's faults is a spiritual reality to many that should be protected and cherished. The two parent family is unique and the building of protections and uniqueness in law and society, or at least the protection of individuals and churches/community to believe what has been taught for millenia is not bad, or even if it is wrong it is a debatable issue not on par with slavery or the civil rights movement. There are logical reasons and it is bad to demonize these religious people because of their belief or to diminish and minimize legitimate disagreement and discourse.
Is "homobigotry" as this poster calls "it" what all orthodox Christian churches teach and what most religious traditions teach?
Is any difference from the position of this poster "homobigotry"?
Anon1: how does any of that justify continued homobigotry and/or the continued societal/governmental discrimination against gay folks?
Anon2: Depends. Don't want to accept gays in your congregation? Fine. Putting political pressure to continue oppression? It's a no brainer.
I don't think it is that Catholics (of the Roman or Eastern Rite(s)) don't want to accept homosexuals in their congregation(s). They accept the person (who may have a homosexual orientation, inclination--whether by a warped environment, choice, or inherent/genetic) but ask that person to reject homosexual activity. The activity is the sin not per se the inclination although the orientation is or at least may be intrinisicly disordered. The question is how far will government go to stop teaching and preaching or to interfere with hiring based on these critierea. There is no rejection of membership in a congregation. There is no persecution and a teaching alongside the recognition of homosexual activity as a sin to both recognize the dignity of all human beings (regardless of state or sin) and to no discriminate (including not discriminating based on sexual orientation)--again the question is sin, nature, the understanding of human sexuality, and purpose of the person.
Dan, a correction on your answer to Levois--Illinois does have a ban on gay marriage or at least a legal definition the other way or a prohibition I think it was 1996
it was called the Defense of Marriage--I think Sen Fitzgerald at the time was the sponsor.
Gays still have a great deal of wealth, political power, influence, buying property, in jobs and discriminating against those who do not want to morally sanction their behavior and those crazy archaic religious nuts.
In Illinois elite, money, Hollywood, Dem political, corporate cirlces--it is cool to be gay, experiment and certainly not have any contrary views, or puritan uncool religious views.
But the law is there Dan, from that evil Peter Fitzgerald.
Anon, again I ask:
how does any of that justify continued homobigotry and/or the continued societal/governmental discrimination against gay folks?
Now answer the question. Or do you not want to for some reason?
Oh wait. I know. You're so full of shit, you're eyes are brown.
You've got well outside the mainstream research (probably NARTH, and I'm just guessing here) which is laughable in it's own field - even if it's not NARTH, it's still well outside mainstream beliefs in the psychological community. None of it even answers for how it is that 'gay' predates Christianity and just about every other organized religion and transcends all cultures - which is kind of interesting considering just how 'valid' you believe your kook research is. You're a fan of Focus on the Family research - hardly a scientific institution. You've got antiquated religious philosophies which are completely incompatible with modern society?
And then you cite that bullshit "love the sinner, hate the sin" stuff. That's about as funny as "Support the troops, but not the war".
P.S. Levois and I were discussing interracial marriage.
But....you would think though, with the supposed vast amount of support the PMI initiative has that they wouldn't have to go to China Town to get bogus signatures for their bill though, right?
You can hate the sin but love the sinner. You can also support the troops but not believe in the war.
That is logical.
These questions are being answered.
What is amazing about Dan is that he can insult, demean, belittle, swear, and offend other posters and major religions but does not engage in respectful dialogue or even vigorous professional debate. Calling people full of sh-t who have taken time to read your long post and links and write a decently written and thought out response/post is not kind, gracious, professional nor respectful. Just responding with BS and insults is not a good way of understanding others and convincing of a point of view.
I do not know NARTH but there is mainstream research (although not sure what you consider mainstream) research in genetics, psychology, theology etc. Not necessarily a fan of Focus on the Family but they do have some good policy briefs and writings.
Your claim that "antiquated religious philosophies are completely incompatible with modern society" is a dangerous indictment of many living religious traditions and an invitation to discrimination.
I don't know about PMI and/or Chinatown nor am I discussing interracial marriage.
Again, I think you would do well not to swear, call people full of sh-t, say that everything is BS.
I also think you could discuss and try to convince well meaning people that are uncomfortable with homosexuality and have genuine spiritual and philosophical concerns with gay marriage and legitimate prohibitions on homosexual behavior.
We do agree that gay behavior and "gays" predate Christianity and can be found in the Bible, Plato, Aristotle, Roman writings etc. In every culture at every time in every part of the world and every historical period there have been prohibitions on homosexual behavior and no equivalence of male and female relations or marriage on par with homosexual behavior--even where accepted. While Plato is considered a homosexual he also rejects it. Aristotle is not a homosexual and speaks of it as disordered. Elites of every society dabbled in it but not as a legitimate expression of an inherent identity but as a hedonisitc experiment in pleasure. There are some isolated South Pacific cultures that have normalized male-male relations (as did some but not all Ancient Greeks) that would be considered pedophilia today. There are certainly gays, gay behavior, gay subculture, closeted gays who have contributed to society in many great ways, gay veterans who were courageous--but all socieities still (Islamic, even Communist, Oriental, Taoism, Confuciunism, Indian, Buddhist and certainly Orthodox Judaism and most of the Christian traditions including the larger Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and the traditional Protestant strains) Gay sex (especially male-male) is disturbing to most people inherently and can be construed as scientifically unhealthy. It is obviously not procreative and arguably not unitive. There is a strain of thought, even among gays, that marriage is not necessary or real as promiscuity in much of the gay subculture is much greater than even the current heterosexual hedonisitc "mainstream" culture. Gay sex is unhealthy at least as in anal sodomy. That is a scientific and emperical fact. It cannot lead to life--life being an integral part to at least Catholic views of sexuality. Aethetistic communists in Russia, Cuba, and even the Dalai Lama have criticized homosexuality as an immoral activitity (using other sources other than the Bible) and the condition a psychological disorder--this is not illogical and you never debate it on it's merits but dismiss it as a priori.
NO society, culture, religion, government (until recently mostly in Western Europe) has had gay same sex marriage(s)--In fact polygamy (or polyandry or any other permutation) has been legal and allowed in other society(ies). African tribal animist societities are polygamous, Islam allows for polygamy, Old Testament Jews had polygamy and even recently in the USA some Mormons were polygamous. Yet now Marriage is defined as monogamous. Marriage can and has changed but if you remove the heterosexual element--is there not a possibility to revisit polygamy or any other element being eliminated or changed? Marriage has no meaning without a definition.
Homosexuality, Homosexual behavior/acts--are still undecided, and controversial issues in society. The elites in this society (Hollywood and others) want to force others to accept certain behavior which is abhorrent to them. Most elites have accepted homosexuality in parties, clubs, and pleasure from Caligula to Yale clubs. That does not make it right nor that Marriage is same sex and that is the same as persecution of African Americans and a Civil Right.
You would do better to use logic, not make assumptions which are not universally accepted, and to respect others opinions. I can respect you and your opinion. I don't have to swear at you. I don't have to say you are full of sh-t or your arguments are BS or that your religion is incompatible with modern society--your approach is scary and offensive.
I do NOT believe that all homosexuals are sociopaths or mass murderers. BUT I think it is worth to note and study and study to make a conclusion AFTER STUDY without making assumptions, presumptions or a-priori conclusions/assumptions that are forced upon everyone by a politically active homosexual lobby that uses intimidation.
BUT it is interesting to note that:
MANY mass murderers in US history are homosexual--and yes there are heterosexual mass murderers--but it is interesting to note that the homosexual population is estimated depending if it is Kinsey or who you cite from 1% to 10% with more realistic statistics at 3% to 7% (whether this includes the increasing numbers of bisexual, bicurious, experimental especially young girls in as the French say menage trois I don't know) But let's say it is 10%--than the number of mass murderers is still higher among homosexuals than the population at large. Although it is hard to know if one is homosexual by inherent inclination or by action--such as prison homosexual sex--which some say is humiliation, power, and lastly sexual release because lack of "natural" female alternative let alone actual homo-erotic attraction. Homosexual sex is not uncommon in prisons, especially in the US, and Cal Skinner has written on this--one of your fellow bloggers--and the higher AIDS rate, anal tearing, and other STDS. Are these homosexuals? Is this any proof that homosexual sex (consensual or rape) is unsafe inherently or statistically?
John Wayne Gacy was gay.
Speck was gay.
Cunnahan was gay and made his way around the wealthy gay community.
Jeffrey Dahmer was gay.
The IIT murders were gay related and protected by the gay community.
All of the above (and more)had homosexuality as inherent to their actions. The heterosexuality of other heterosexual killers is not as integral to their personality.
There is actually academic research on this topic. It would be not logical to at least look at this and think about it--let alone study and make conclusions.
While again, I do not believe that all homosexuals are pedophiles (or vice versa) and the Christian Science Monitor reports that most "religious" abuse is Protestant lay people, many times married men--and most abuse is not clerical but in homes with relatives, stepfathers--and most of it "heterosexual" even if at an "immature" level. There is abuse in Public schools at high rates, in psychiatrist offices.
Although there probably should be a legal and moral distinction (although both are bad and about power) between pedophilia and ebophilia and the older teenage "consensual" relations that one can even see in popular TV and stories. Cardinal George was right, even with the criticism of NOW, that there is a difference between a priest with a 5 year old boy and a priest with a 17 year girl fully developed as a woman who are drinking together and than have sexual relations--again both are bad but one is more natural and more correctable from a psychological/medical point of view--I know some NOW and others will say no but it is a reality.
HOWEVER, even if there is not a higher rate of pedophilia among homosexuals (which is not true but no argument here for sake of discussion further) and of course not all homosexuals are not all pedophiles--there does seem to be a link IN THE SUBGROUP OF CATHOLIC PRIESTS where most reported cases of abuse were pedophilia/ebophilia and homosexual related (in contrast to male-female or underdeveloped non physical adults). So most priest abusers were also homosexuals. Some like the evil Shanley had homosexuality as keys to their idenitity and were involved in the homosexual political and cultural community which is definable sometimes by geography as well as individiuals, newspapers, and events. (as a side note the Mayor of San Francisco celebrated a gay pornography day) At any rate, there is a link between HOMOSEXUALS and PEDOPHILIA in the subgroup of Catholic priests. The homosexuality in Catholic priests seems to drive their personalities and their approach to sexuality and even abuse. Some may say this is an immature sexuality or maybe they are inherently or genetically abusers--but again there is a link between this abuse and homosexuality--even if this abuse is between adults or teenagers with adult bodies in what both may believe are consensual or quasi consensual. It also seems that homosexuals do pursue heterosexuals and people can be affected by homosexual experiences even when that is not their initial or inherent orientation.
Dan,
Will you and Pat Hickey lobby the good Catholic, Irish--yet homobigots, like South Side Democratic conservative Representatives and Senators like
State Rep Kevin Joyce
State Rep Brosnahan
State Senator Ed Maloney
State Rep Kevin McCarthy
ALL oppossed even the basic 101 Human Rights bill. ALL opposse gay marriage some even signed on to the Illinois Family Institute's Protect Marriage Act. (as did other Democrats)
Do you think these narrow minded Catholic, antiquated, anti-modern, heterosexist, homophobes are BIGOTS who should be thrown from office? Do the residents of the 19th ward, Oak Lawn, Evergreen Park, Orland Park, Burbank etc support these anti-gay policies?
Are these haters? If I came cross dressed with transgendered friends into Keegans would I be accepted?
Did you know that Reps Joyce and Brosnahan would not eat popcorn after Rep McKeon ate from the bowl in Springfield (I and many others saw it) and started to mock him (not to his face) about having AIDS and they didn't want to get it (by not eating from the same popcorn bowl)
Even Rick Garcia will tell you that 101 failed the Senate, not be Republicans but by Sen Louis Viverito, Sen James Meeks, Sen Ed Maloney--all from Chicago area--let alone the downstate bigots.
Dan should start attacking the homobigotry of the South Side Democrats and that bigotry is the same as racism. If there beliefs are from their constituents--we should not have a tyranny of the majority. If there beliefs are from the antiquated Catholic religion, there is a separation of Church and State, and Catholics can reject homosexuals in their congregations but not as teachers, job holders, or preach or teach their beliefs or dare to influence society or public policy.
STOP 19th WARD AND SOUTH SIDE IRISH HOMOBIGOTRY.
DAN AND HICKEY SHOULD EDUCATE THESE NARROW MINDED BIGOTS LIKE KEVIN JOYCE.
"Show me ONE example where a Christian has been targeted for wearing a cross or a WWJD wrist band. Quit pretending like there's still an anti-Christian bent"
My daughter (and others) were prohibitted from wearing Halloween Costumes at her Lutheran School on the claim that Halloween was a Christian Holiday, that may be offensive to non-Christians.
Yes, this is a goofy example (Lutherans were doing the anti-Christian stuff here, go figure), but it is certainly true that public Christianity is frowned on in the USA.
JBP
Michael,
You sure know how to gather the votes; who could say no to political genius like yourself.
Public expressions of Christianity are frowned upon in the United States.
JB Powers were you juschill in a previous incarnation?
Todays Sun Times has an article on some interesting problems regarding homosexual adoption.
Pracitical and legal.
Gay adoption is legal in Illinois per court decision (former Judge Gino DeVito)
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/312721,032507adopt.article
So wait, anon, let me ask you this question again:
how does any of that (your bogus, out of the mainstream research) justify continued homobigotry and/or the continued societal/governmental discrimination against gay folks?
3rd time. We know you're avoiding the question now.
The part that I have trouble getting my mind around is that you are using fabricated scientific evidence and a bastardized version of a religious philosophy to justify hate of another group, which in your world view are mentally ill at the worst - or just second class citizens. Yet - you complain that I'm telling you that you're full of shit.
Powers,You call that anti-catholic?
Dan L,
You are fantastic. I wish more conservatives would get their collective heads out of their asses and realize the error of their ways.
Nicely done.
xoxo,
Bridget
p.s. My life will be complete when Porno Pete is caught with his boyfriend.
"You call that anti-catholic"
Anti-Christian in this case.
I label it as a ham handed way to try to drive Christianity out of everday life. About as useful as renaming St. Petersburg as Leningrad or Vera Cruz as Veracruz, but a charmless way of stamping out the last public displays of Chrisitanity.
JBP
Dan L, I think you're painting with a broad brush here, and hurting your credibility a bit. One can think that Peter LaBarbera, et al are total idiots and morons and still agree with the traditional religious view of homosexual behavior.
But your generous use of sh-t and BS does not support any of your arguments.
I wouldn't answer a question with a premise that requires one to defend "homobigotry", whatever that means. Or one that requires someone to defend government action against any group of people.
It is quite simple to defend private choices that may not favor homosexuality.
But defending government actions against homosexuals is more problematic. Further, defending government action forcing people in private actions to favor homosexuals is indefensible.
In other words, involve the government in the mix and you have a mess. Keep the government out and you make things infinitely better.
But some will insist on using the government to favor one side or another, as long it is their side. In this case, the advocates of pro-homosexual government action are as wrong and ridiculous as the LaBarberas who advocate anti-homosexual government behavior.
Forgot to add that the use of churchsigngenerator.com to make your "God hates Gays!" image doesn't add weight to your points.
Back to ranting Michael,
.Are these haters? If I came cross dressed with transgendered friends into Keegans would I be accepted?'
Pretty Broad and angry brush you use.
1. Only pains in the ass are shown the door at Keegan's - you might rightly be ushered to the sidewalk; not for lifestyle, but bad manners -
a. Playing the jukebox when everyone else is watching Jepordy or the Food Channel.
b. Dancing in the service area
c. putting your feet up on the bar - Paul Vallas got ripped a new one by Michelle from Manchester
e. Complaining about the smoke
f. Asking if this is Cork and Kerry
g. Not sharing a delivered pizza with the regulars
f. Offering ' Gentlemen, I give you the Queen!' This is a Fenian hangout - Catholic Protestant, Jewish, Atheist ( Ray the retired Fireman)notwithstanding
h. Interrupting the local Marxists in mid-rant - there were five by last count.
For a Jewish perspective on homosexuality, check out:
www.askmoses.com
www.meaningfullife.com
www.inner.org
I think there is a middle ground between spewing hate and not supporting gay marriage.
I even think that reasonable, non hating people can believe that there is something wrong with homosexual male anal sex acts or even homosexual orientation based on many different factors including religious belief.
My reading of the above, without knowing all the research, seems to answer your question (although not my answer). However, your question begs the question and makes and assumption that there is homobigotry in the first place.
I may not like the IFI or be a supporter of the PMA but that does not mean that I support gay marriage nor that I believe that homosexual sexual activitity is not sin. There is a distinction, the one credit I give Dan, between government and private action (or inaction).
I got some emails some time ago from Peter LaBarbara. I was on their website, although not recently. I did not like the content but was unsure what the point LaBarbara was trying to make. He had one email (this may go back a year but it does stick in my mind although I may not remember the details) about bathhouses. If these bathouses are violating decency or prostitution laws, they should be busted regardless of their homosexuality eg that if there was a heterosexual bath house with prostitutes or heterosexual sex protistution or consensual or otherwise it should be shut down and/or people should be arrested. However, the current prostitution laws and public decency laws should apply.
There was another email or link on their (IFI) website to the Gay parade. It had what appeared to be at the parade in public one man having his face in another mans buttocks. That was disgusting. It seemed many people were walking around nonplussed including policemen. It does seem true that Equality Illinois and Parade organizers do not seem to criticize or even regulate that or other behavior. It does seem that the public displays of homosexuality are extreme during the day at a parade and are even more extreme (being during the day and at a parade) than heterosexual public displays and excess that seem more regulated to night, night clubs or foreign spring break excursions. I asked not to be sent those emails as a written description without a poorly buffered video of a man performing some anal sex act on another man is not what I want in my email box or computer. While two men have a right to perform those acts in the privacy of their homes, that does not mean I have to accept it, like it, believe it is not sin, or change public decency laws for it.
Again, LaBarbara does seem to be obssessed with the disgusting, and I don't think he needs to send emails about it. However, the disgusting does seem to be public and criminal under other statutes other than any prohibitions on homoexuality and I would apply, (and the law should apply equally) to heterosexuals. (eg if a woman were putting her face in a man's buttocks at the South Side Irish parade, or there was Public nudity at the Columbus day parade--they too should get arrested.) There does seem to be more public nudity, public sex acts, and what I would consider depravity at public gay events.
In terms of justifying continued homobigotry and denying civil rights. If someone is beat up--there is battery laws that should apply equally to everyone. If someone is killed--there are murder laws.
Government should pick up garbage from gays, straights, Christians, Buddhsists, Muslims, aethiests, and anyone else on an equal basis.
There are many crimes that people cannot commit. There are job protections, union protections, private sector benefits including to same sex partners, and one cannot hire or fire based on many criteria. So the gay bashing, fights, people being beat up are already crimes. The famous sad story of the young gay man who was beat up outside a bar in Wyoming already was protected by the law.
These are not examples of government action nor discrimination.
The main issue Dan seems to use in terms of a Civil Right is marriage.
Gays tend to have higher incomes, the more politically active ones and the visible communities tend to be male/white/professional (understanding there can be and are minority and poor gays)--but the point is that there is not discrimination against gays to the extent there is a thriving, vibrant, self protected geographic community, job referrals, and attacks on those who do not agree with them. Giant penises were blown up on former Sen. Jesse Helm's lawn. Many Catholic services were disrupted across the country by ACT UP including physical violence and attacking the bread and wine in what would be sacrilegeous to Catholics. There were phone calls to Boy Scout troops threatening molestation and obscene calls because of the supposed exclusion of gay Scout leaders.
Marriage historically has been defined by religious authority and in some traditions is considered sacramental rather than just a contract. To believe that Marriage is a 1) heterosexual 2) permanent 3) Monogamous 4) Loving and 5) for the purpose of producing children (as many people believe) is not denying homosexuals civil rights nor being a hating homobigot. There is science (whether you agree or not) that seems to indicate the homosexuality is not a genetic trait and that some homosexuals can be changed. I don't know and am not an expert but either are you or Equality Illinois and thus these issues of genetic traits and ability to change sexual orientation seem open to debate and are not foregone conclusions.
Homosexual couples can create Wills, Trusts, Powers of Attorneys and many other legal documents that anyone can make and are not prohibited to homosexuals. The claims that homosexual partners are excluded from hospitals (it would be by family members if there is no power of attorney or will) do happen and are possible by the immediate family but are not common and can be overcome. While there are issues with health care, inheritance, benefits--again life insurance policies, health insurance policies, power of attorneys can bypass these issues just as is the case for the numerous non married heterosexual coupls who have children or friends or lovers who want to leave money to someone else from an insurance policy or their estate. Thus, the changing of marriage laws is not neccessary to protect individual choice and perogatives in the financial arena.
The idea that homosexual couples are exactly the same, at least from a societal point of view, or at least under the law, as heterosexual married couples is different on a number of levels.
The idea that homosexuals suffered as much as slaves, or African Americans or American Indians is not based on statistical or historical reality. As Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr said (and I am not usually in agreement) the slave owners were gay as were slaves possibly, but the sexual orientation of slave owner or slave was not a question or factor. As cited above in an earlier post, many upper echelons of societies throughout history practiced homosexuality but not in a committed marital sense but in the sense of what has come to be known as a Roman orgy. There has never been a universal acceptance of gay anal sex let alone homosexual marriage.
There are many public policy reasons to protect and promote so called traditional families from crime to education to social support and stability. While the argument that two men loving together does not affect my marriage has some logic, the bigger picture is when society and laws and culture weaken the family structure--than families cease to exist as we know it and societal problems increase. Certainly industrialization, the decrease in the importance of religion, the sexual revolution, economic pressures--have all affected the family--but human sexuality, fidelity and more important children and laws do affect the stability of the family structure--regardless if it is truly Divine or an absolute.
The above cited Catholic Catechism clearly prohibits homosexual activity. It also calls for not discriminating based on homosexual identity and to respect all. The Catholic Church uniquely, has a more restrictive sexual teaching including celibacy, chastity, no birth control, and the sex act to only be in the context of love and renewal of life. I do not know if that is right or even possible. However, to believe in that does not make some one a bigot nor does it deprive someone of their civil rights.
I think Dan also overestimates sexual identity in the identity of the individual. One may be inclined to sexual attraction of the same sex but not necessarily believe it is right or want marriage or any permanency (many in the gay community including in academic pro gay literature) discuss that they do not want marriage, they want freedom, they do not want monogamy and this is a poor imitation of heterosexual and bourgeouis life. A gay person may be a conservative, have differing political views even on issues of gay "rights" etc. The Civil Rights of the Individual are in the Constitution, many laws, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and gays are protected and not excluded from being murdered, battered, stolen from. Gays have the right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Associate, Freedom of Religion--just as we all do. There is nothing unique in the law for bisexuals, pedophiles, necrophilia, or any other sexual attraction--not that homosexuality is the same as necrophilia only that if sexual attraction is genetic than it being genetic is not necessarily make it good and other attractions that are currently illegal also could also be genetic. The current gay rights push is not based on science or mainstream research or civil rights in the traditional sense but on political power and an ideological agenda not or at least not necessarily based on research.
There are many reasons that there should not be gay marriage. There are other posts here. Books, articles, TV shows--I will not bore you all here (besides the above)but there are legitimate reasons and they are answered but for sake of repitition--the lack of evidence that homosexuality is an inherent or genetic trait (at least not in all cases), the view of some religions that marriage is not just about the two people but also about procreation and an institution to raise children, the emperical evidence (that I am not necessarily agreeing with) that some homosexuals do indeed change and more importantly that many homosexuals became that way because of parental relations or lack thereof and/or sexual trauma from molestation, abuse, or relatively early experiences.
Homosexual couples by the current definition and law cannot be married, and the definition needs to be changed but what does that change mean and what are the impace--while there may not be an exact point for point direct correlation on heterosexual divorce--if marriage is not a sacred institution, if there is not something special--there is not necessarily a reason for it being more permanent or trying to work it out, also there certainly is attempt by some in the homosexual movement (as has been done in other countries) to lower the age of consent, political alliances with groups who are publicly and explicitly pedohiliacs, and to change public decency and public displays of sexuality (which also apply to heterosexuals and are enforced against them. There is no doubt a pan sexual, anything goes, hedonistic culture that is developing that some want to see protected in the law. This is not Civil Rights but license.
There is a strong danger of over interference in religion, and discrimination against religious people at least based on their thousands of years unchanged stands on human sexuality and specifically homosexuality. Hiring, tax exempt status, ability to run schools--all based on opposition to gay marriage or the teaching that homosexual sex is a sin. While Dan may come on and say BS--it is happening in some European countries and Canada. Basically, you can be Christian (or whatever religion) but don't believe anything that restricts homosexuality or sexual expression because that is archaic and bad.
The gay political movement is dangerous for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and Dan proves that there is no desire for discussion or even vigorous debate--only that anyone who disagrees is dead wrong period and that they are bigots who should be excluded from this debate and society. All traditional religious types are searching for the worse gay behavior with Peter LaBarbara and watching gay porn. All those who oppose gay marriage are as bad as those who hosed down Blacks during Selma. All those who believe that homosexuality is a sin do not belong in modern society. All those who do not want gay marriage should not even discuss the issue and are hateful homobigots.
There is no discussion with Dan, you just have to agree. You can write, send links, print articles, cite research--and all the research, organizations, links are bad and out of the mainstream.
I have NEVER seen Dan actually discuss or even disagree and engage any of these websites, logic, research or anything--only to a priori dismiss them as bigots equivalent of racists. There has been no logic by Dan or point-counter point, no analogy and/or distinction--not even discussion only insults, foul language, and asking questions that have been already answered.
This kind of debate will not convince or heal but only further divide and will actually hurt Dan's cause. There are many good, educated, well intentioned people who disagree with Dan's position--they do not deserve to be demonized as bigots who have no place in modern society--that is not what they are--even if they are wrong--and they just might be right.
So Keegans Bar is OK with cross dressing as long as it is not Royalist, Orange cross dressers or trans gender
but if the gay rights cross dressing trans gender is a Sinn Fein sympathizer it is OK
It must be a different bar today than when I dropped by which wasn't that long ago
An interesting point about conservative Dems, hypocricy, votes and lobbying.
I will bet a pint of Guiness that the patrons at Keegans won't take to kindly to Cross Dressing--even if he/she was dressed in Green and had a Free Bobby Sands bumper sticker on his/her car.
This is not the post or maybe even the Blog for serious policy or even political discussion. Dan thinks the more he writes and insults people and swears (doesn't Rich Miller have a policy on swearing especially from the actual Blogger?)he gets his point across. Dan is the most dangerous type of homofacist because he hates free speech and other peoples ideas and opinions. He has not responded to anything that anyone has wrote even though there seem to be well written and well thought out posts up from different perspectives. Did Dan go to the Jewish websites and read what they have to say and WHY? or are they just haters and bigots and just plain wrong and there religion is wrong and they have no right to be part of a discussion on this or any other issue and do not deserve to be at the table? I have seen links, articles, logic, and writing that is right or wrong/good or bad part of this discussion. I don't see Cal Skinner take stuff down when it disagrees with his more conservative point of view.
Dan seems to be a loud, immature, unprofessional, rude, and disrespectful blogger. He certainly writes a lot but he does not really say a lot. He can be for gay rights, gay marriage or anything else but others have a right to disagree. Without reading every post and comment, those discussion this issue on the other side are not saying that Dan is full of shit, that the arguments are BS, or that he is a hateful bigot. Dan seems to believe anyone who actually agrees with the official Catholic position or other so called traditional religious positions are Luddites anti-modern, hateful bigots. This is discrimiantory and hateful in and of itself.
I thought the purpose of the Blog was to have free speech and open discussion.
I would advise Dan to grow up and be respectful and open to others opinions.
I would advise Rich Miller, with all due respect, to counsel this apparently young man to not curse/swear/insult and to discuss issues and not insult or to drop him as a blogger. It is, of course, your board and you can do what you want, I am just making a suggestion.
Dan does not want to discuss this issue, he just wants to insult and marginilize anyone who disagrees with him.
Bet away!
If I am looking to pick up single women for a fleshy heterosexual assignation, I would not drop by Berlin all splashed up with Old Spice!
Likewise, if I were attempteing to court the Catholic Conservative vote waving the wand of bigotry like Micheal above ain't the way to lock up that support.
Conversely,
Just opened the Leo Mail and Low and Behold from Flint, Michigan arrives Homophobic hate mail; LOADED with Biblical passages; rants against parents who love their children -gay or straught (NS!); Headlined by 'IF FAG IS GENETIC _ WHY IS FAG NOT EXTINCT?
Fair question Mr. Darwin- now to answer that he have the eminent Dr.
Reinhardt Schutzstaffell late of Death's Head Polytechnic . . .
These clowns have waaayyy too much time.
Dan: I respect the hell out of you for posting this type of material. Everytome I have something on my local blog I end up deleting 10 to 15 comments calling me faggot, or some other variation of a gay slur. Just because someone supports the rights of a gay person does not make him gay. Any more than believing in racial eqaulity makes someone any variety of skin color.
I think it might be good if people limited their posts to, say, 50,000 words.
Anon, it's very simple. I'll break it down for you to the most basic possible level:
You can't cry about people being mean to you, when you're actually making an argument for treating other human beings as second class citizens simply because you and your whacked out version of jeebus don't like what goes on in their bedroom.
You can argue about whether it's biological or a choice, you can argue about what your bible says, and you can ramble on an on about how _somehow_ - queer folk getting married restricts your rights as a Fake Christian(TM) - but in the end, you're nothing more than a bigot.
And the fact that you head for the hills and are still avoiding directly answering my question while crying foul only proves the entire point: I know you're wrong, You know you're wrong, you just refuse to admit that there's no threat to you, your home schooled children, or your congregation if queer folk get equal rights.
And your probably right. I may be a 'dangerous pro-homofacist' simply based on the fact that I have every reason to keep my mouth shut and let your repugnant ilk continue the hate mongering. I'm a straight guy - I don't get anything when they get equality. I'm a conservative - we'll probably lose some elections in the process. But I do it, because it's the right thing to do. And once that whole "right thing to do" catches on, you and people like you are screwed.
You call that hating free speech? Allow me to insult you again: You're full of shit. You can say whatever you want. That doesn't mean I won't mock you.
PS: I'm going to get a tshirt that reads "Dangerous HomoFacist"
Wow Dan really good discussion. You are really mature. You are convincing a lot of people.
Keep on alienating those religious nuts.
Dan gets slapped down in logic, and can't come back.
In what logic?
People are answering your questions.
You choose not to respond.
They do not agree with you.
Nobody is violating peoples civil rights and is treating people as second class citizens.
It is not what someone does in their bedrooms. That is not what this discussion is about.
You have not produced any contradictory research let alone logic.
You are dangerous to free speech and religious liberties.
You lack any class or maturity in the way you write and respect others in dialogue.
Remember that Dan L is the guy who defends Burge torture.
He does not deny the torture, but says, read his own words, that in these urban areas you have to act like the animals you are locking up. His dad told him that. I am not kidding. Read his own words.
Dan L on his own website
moveonandshutup
is very clear in defending torture and saying that Jon Burge was the best cop ever--please read it.
Dan L is a very sick person and defends that which is indefensible.
Carolina,
Flint make you post that or Frank Avila?
Hey, Carol Marin, another 40 Watt intellect, chimed in on the Burge Chorus today - now, I know that there's not much to Flint Taylor's Lotto Ticket!
If Carol Marin says that you are a
septuagenarian IRA Hit-Squad, why not be teh owner operator of Flint Taylor's HOUSE OF SCREAMS??
Funny, Mayor Washington, Mayor Orr and Mayor Sawyer never got too worked up over all that screaming.
You clowns with the Burge One Note Samba have really beaten a dead horse into a plowshare for dummies!
Start reading. Something besides Comrade Ben.
Burge is in Florida. He'll live out his days in Florida and Flint Taylor will work himself into a Self-Righteous Commie Stroke, ( probably Screaming to Andy Shaw at the Dicksen Center)before any court in America gives him another dime.
Maybe Carol 'Not Oprah Yet But Working On It' Marin will toss him and all of his buds a benefit. Nah. Too much like work! Leave that to the 'tight knit' People to take care of others - the self-absorbed merely 'Take it to the Streets!' and Bore the Hell out of Everyone Else!
There that should about do it.
Wind up the whinning lighweights!
I truly get a kick out of Anon. He sits here being a bigot asshole, crys foul when people call him a bigot asshole as though we're assaulting his 'freedom of speech' some how, and _then_ claims that he's not being a bigot at all.
And no, anon, you have not answered the question. Once again:
how does any of that (your bogus, out of the mainstream research) justify continued homobigotry and/or the continued societal/governmental discrimination against gay folks?
Or...you can just admit to being stupid and tell us that you don't see how queer folk are being discriminated against. Take your pick. You're a bigot. Or your ignorant.
Pat Hickey,
You are wrong on the Burge issue. Burge has cost the city tens of millions of dollars. If you did not like the cop killing Wilson brothers (as you should hate them) than Burge allowed them to get $100,000 and Flint Taylor made on that case alone $900,000. Flint Taylor has made plenty of money on police torture so you are wrong about courts not giving him another dime. In fact, if you read the papers, supposedly the city was going to give him and the other attorneys 15 million for 2 or 3 of the Burge victims.
It was not Flint nor Avila nor Loevy who said that Burge was culpable BUT 2 City of Chicago OPS investigations including the Goldston report. It was Federal Courts in the Wilson case. It was the Civil Service Board of the Police Department who fired Burge.
It was even the recent Special Prosecutors Report of Egan and Boyle which said that Burge and a half a dozen or so officers should of been indicted and would of been convicted by a reasonable doubt the statute had run--not that they did not do the crime. The Special Prosecutors report was not favorable to all the Flint Taylor cases but it did put blame on certain officers (Boffo, Pienta, etc) and had some horrific narratives that were corroborated by physical evidence and the same testimony.
There are almost 200 claims of torture. The same type and pattern, electrocution of genitals (which now police officers are coming foward and admitting), suffocation, and other inhumane acts.
The Burge torture is awful and indefensible. There is overwhelming evidence it happened.
After the Special Operations, the traders beat up in the bar, Miezadowski, and the poor girl beat up by Abaate--the blue curtain needs to be raised and we need to change the culture.
You cannot defend Burge--it is amazing anyone tries.
"continued homobigotry and/or the continued societal/governmental discrimination against gay folks?"
You have had your questions answered. You make so many conclusions, assumptions, presuppositions. You have not class or grace. You have no logical or debating skills.
You have not class or grace. You have no logical or debating skills.
Keep dancing son.
Gosh Joey,
I never really understood the whole horrible story and its deepest impact until now.
You made such a compelling case that I'll just really have to go along with you and all the other kids that 'really count' down at the malt shop.
No sense being such a grumpy old square stick-in-the mud. Let's all go down to Florida and really give that mean old Mr. Burge a real what-for!
Then he'll really be sorry for what he did and maybe he can move back to Wicker Park; read some back issues of the Chicago Reader; go vegan; quit smoking; wear a knit skull-tam; grow a soul-patch and shave his head;ink on some insane Tats and really take in some important films.
Thanks Joey.
Then he'll really be sorry for what he did and maybe he can move back to Wicker Park; read some back issues of the Chicago Reader; go vegan; quit smoking; wear a knit skull-tam; grow a soul-patch and shave his head;ink on some insane Tats and really take in some important films.
Pat: You are funny.
Burge might even change his sexual orientation.
Vegan would be hard for Burge--he is a meat eater.
What would those important films be? Maybe Ingrid Bergman in the Seventh Seal?
He and Billy Dec could sip Cosmos; after Burge does a one-woman show revival of theVagina Monologues; Then and only then will this world achieve the balance and surety we all believe to be really important -
'This Dan Savage review of 'My Mother The Car' really turned me around . . .' J. Burge quipped in Suzanna's Night Out!
Later, Stella Foster gave her 'Props to the man who tortured the lines at CroBar'
He and Aaron Paterson could dialog in a phone-in conference call on 'This American Life' on WFMT
Wouldn't that be Grey Goose world?
Post a Comment