Al,

Interesting post. You almost seem to take a stand, which is refreshing in this debate here on Blogcritics, where so many posters who SEEM to feel gay people are morally inferior only say so in a sideways fashion.

Let me offer two examples to clarify my position:

1. A lesbian couple, in love, raising children, paying taxes, doing all those things good citizens do. Like maybe the couple in the first paragraphs of this story. Anyone who could look at that couple and come to a determination that they are morally inferior solely because they happen to be of the same sex is a bigot. Why? Because the moral condemnation stems from no logical basis.

2. A gay man who constantly cruises bars and sex clubs, knowing he is HIV positive, having sex with partners unprotected without warning them. I wholeheartedly agree that this man is morally inferior--his inexcusable behavior is bad for everyone, even people he doesn't come into contact with. He is a menace. But his behavior is wrong because of the serious, provable public health risk he poses, not because he happens to like men. A straight man doing the same thing (and they do exist) would be just as wrong. Condemning either of these men is not bigotry--because there is a demonstrable logical basis for the condemnation

That's why the bathhouse issue you raise is a red herring--I would challenge you to find a single leader in the GLBT movement who endorses unprotected sex. (By the way, instead of making assumptions about my feelings on promiscuous unprotected bathhouse behavior, you could have asked.)

So, scary images of HIV-spreading-and-proud-of-it gay men aside, do you have anything to support your almost-assertion that homosexuals are inherently morally inferior to straight people? I know you're not actually making this assertion (God forbid!), but you are defending those who do. You indicate that "perhaps" they have a point.

If so, what could it possibly be? You'd better respond, Al--those here on Blogcritics who actually hold the view you are defending apparently fear to state and support it themselves.

Brian, I am absolutely NOT of the opinion that simply being homosexual shows moral inferiority. I would be leary of making any blanket statement about such a variable and broad ranging group as that. Also, I'm not a Christian, so I don't have that underlying religious doctrine.

I would come closer to saying that homosexuality tends to be unhealthy. I don't mean to imply that all or even most homosexuals are as ridiculously irresponsible as frequenters of bathhouses. By the way, would you consider supporting closing or restricting such establishments? I brought up that idea basically as a point of contrast to the perfect Christian marital ideal to make the point that not all sexual lifestyle choices are morally or practically equal.

On the other hand, homosexuals do appear to have a greater tendency to promiscuity, among men anyway. This makes some sense, as homosexuals are already basically sexual outlaws.

I don't pretend to have an explanation for homosexuality. Granted, I do have the high credentials of a BS degree from Ball State University with a minor in psychology, yet I somehow manage to remain humble in my opinions.

Seriously though, human sexuality is far too complicated to have such answers on a broad scale. There are too many variables- including many that perhaps aren't obvious to us- for there to be a single cause or explanation for all homosexual behavior.

With those qualifications, I will tend to view homosexuality as an expression of emotional immaturity, which would correspond with Freud's thinking as best I understand it. Thus it makes perfectly good sense to see a lot of young people experimenting with homosexual behavior and, as it were, growing out of it.

Or maybe I have no real insight on the matter at all. However, I will say a couple of things I'm more sure of. One is that any individual will tend to be better off being straight (and preferably monogamous) rather than gay in numerous ways. They get to have children and blend into society better in myriad ways. It just tends to work out better.

Another thing I feel confident in saying is that there is some fluidity and flexibility in sexual identity. Now, Liberace and Elton John are just flat gay. There really ain't no two ways about it. However, most people who are homosexual in practice have some heterosexual proclivities and experience, as nature has strongly loaded us up for this. Heck, even Elton was married to a woman for a minute.

Perhaps then, it would be the wiser course of action for us to recognize heterosexuality as being in fact the norm, and the more preferred practice. Without being hateful or judgmental toward those whose proclivities run to homosexuality, it would make sense to gently encourage those wavering and impressionable young folks toward the path that will be healthier and happier and more functional.

Except for lesbians, of course, (at least young cute ones) as they are quite pleasing to heterosexual men. As I said, these things are complicated.

My main point in the post, however, was not to criticize homosexuals, but to criticize people who attack the character of anyone who criticizes homosexuals, which you seem to do. Perhaps you can raise counterexamples, but it sure looks like anyone who makes any criticism of homosexual practices or homosexual organizations is just asking to have you label them as a bigot- no better than evil old Strom Thurmond or George Wallace.

Again, some critics of homosexuality are just hateful jerks, such as Fred Phelps. Some, such as Reverend Falwell are decent individuals with whom I might have some serious differences of opinion. Like homosexuals, there are a whole range of different attitudes and arguments among critics of homosexuals.

I don't necessarily agree with critics of homosexuality- particularly the religious arguments- but I don't think that it is fair to make them all out to be stupid or evil or bigoted. I don't think it's accurate to do so, nor does it further healthy public discourse.

Al wrote a lot.... My answers will be in bold face.

Brian, I am absolutely NOT of the opinion that simply being homosexual shows moral inferiority. I would be leary of making any blanket statement about such a variable and broad ranging group as that. Also, I'm not a Christian, so I don't have that underlying religious doctrine. ... I would come closer to saying that homosexuality tends to be unhealthy.

By whose standards?

I don't mean to imply that all or even most homosexuals are as ridiculously irresponsible as frequenters of bathhouses.

Again, who is the authority who decided what is and isn't "irresponsible"? That is your opinion -- one I happen to share, by the way. But the truth is, there are many more sexually "irresponsible" heterosexuals than there are slutty and saintly gays, lesbians, and bisexuals combined.

By the way, would you consider supporting closing or restricting such establishments?

Why ask this of the queers? This is not germane to the discussion. I don't see that we've banned het men who like paying for sex from getting married, serving openly in the military, adopting kids.

Since you asked, though, other than restricting such establishments to those who have reached the age of majority, no, on Libertarian grounds. I don't have to support a "gentlemen's club" or XXX bookstore or "live, nude girls" to support other adults' right to patronize the businesses they want.

I brought up that idea basically as a point of contrast to the perfect Christian marital ideal to make the point that not all sexual lifestyle choices are morally or practically equal.

OK, you've said you aren't Christian. Let me inform you of something that even some Christians don't know: The ideal to which you refer is the ideal for particular strains of Christianity. There are many different interpretations of Christian teachings -- a number of denominations could very well split over disagreements over subjects such as homosexuality (the link is to a related report I did for Baltimore City Paper on the topic). I am a Christian, and in my interpretation, the perfect Christian marital idea is reflected in a committed, loving union of two people. My relationship with a woman, if blessed by God, can be the perfect Christian marital ideal, and in some churches (if not US law), it already is seen as such.

On the other hand, homosexuals do appear to have a greater tendency to promiscuity, among men anyway.

Perhaps this is a MAN thing. I know many more heterosexual than homosexual men, and most of them are pretty randy beings... As my brother says, "Men are dogs." (I don't buy that at all, but I know that some are, and the hets and the homos, in my experience, aren't all that different.)

Seriously though, human sexuality is far too complicated to have such answers on a broad scale. There are too many variables- including many that perhaps aren't obvious to us- for there to be a single cause or explanation for all homosexual behavior.

I want an explanation for heterosexual behavior. That's what I don't understand. ;-)

And now I am going to get a little angry: Why the heck do I have to explain the cause for my sexual orientation before I'm allowed to have full citizenship rights? What's the cause of your heterosexuality? Did/will you have to define and defend that before you could/can marry? I don't know why I'm queer and don't care. I just am.

With those qualifications, I will tend to view homosexuality as an expression of emotional immaturity, which would correspond with Freud's thinking as best I understand it.

You mean Siggy? The one who said, "It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too"? Siggy said some good things and some crazy things. The crazy stuff, with which you say you tend to agree, is touted by some of the authors of the books you've chosen. Joseph Nicolosi is the notorious head of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. Richard Cohen heads up the International Healing Foundation in Maryland. Both, IMO and in the opinions of many, are quacks. And I've even had Religious Reichers tell me on the QT that they believe Cohen, in particular, is cracked, which isn't hard to believe if you know him as I've known him. Both Nicolosi and Cohen push the notion (one discredited by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and other reputable organizations) that homosexuality is emotional immaturity/arrested development/blah blah blah. Their theory posits that gay men didn't have strong male role models/father figures; lesbians hate and fear men and had poor relationships with their mothers. It's amazing how many queers don't have these sorts of histories. It's amazing how many queers are well-adjusted, productive, contributing members of society. But what's really amazing is how many people -- apparently like you, Al (please correct me if I am wrong!!!) -- buy into this garbage. Hey fags and dykes! Undergo reperative therapy and change fom gay to het, from unequal to equal! Add God to the mix, and it's ex-gay ministry! I beg of you: Read. Learn. Don't go recommending this shit if you don't know the ins and outs of it. Seriously -- people can be severely damaged by exgay ministries and so-called reperative therapy. Some even take their lives. These things you are advocating are DANGEROUS. That's not my word -- that comes from many medical associations including those mentioned above. I wrote an investigative piece on the subject a few years back; it should offer some insight and information for you on this frightening issue. But the bottom line is change therapy doesn't work for most (and perhaps all) who try it. Sexuality, for some, is fluid. For some it is fixed. End of story. I am queer. I have always been this way, even when I didn't know what to call it. It is as immutable a characteristic as my eye color.

One is that any individual will tend to be better off being straight (and preferably monogamous) rather than gay in numerous ways. They get to have children and blend into society better in myriad ways. It just tends to work out better.

Fine for those into conformity. How about happiness? How is someone better off having sex they hate or no sex at all JUST TO MAKE YOU AND THE RELIGIOUS REICH HAPPY?

This individual is queer. I have two children (and I know LOTS of gay couples with children, so lose that stereotype). I couldn't blend into society if I wanted to (and trust me, I don't like society -- why would I want to blend in with them?). My dad hated it when, at 18, I started wearing a button I have to this day: "How dare you presume I am heterosexual!" Not that there's anything wrong with being het. I do not want you thinking that I am heterosexual, though. No, this individual would not be better off pretending to be like you.

However, most people who are homosexual in practice have some heterosexual proclivities and experience, as nature has strongly loaded us up for this.

Oh really? You don't know too many queers well, do you? I have tried sex with men (and wish I hadn't). Nature did not load me up for it. Sorry, can't stand it. Not my cuppa. Exceptions? A couple. And there are some very lovely men that God put on the planet. I can enjoy them on an aesthetic level. But SLEEP with them? Outside of, say, Hugh Jackman or Dan Fogelberg, I'd sooner take a bullet. My proclivities are toward women. Any time I've tried sex with men -- and I married one -- I can only get through the awful act by thinking of women. Any decent shrink will tell you -- forcing me into heterosexuality would be a HUGE mistake and likely a dangerous one. So how would I be better off, pray tell?

Heck, even Elton was married to a woman for a minute.

And you just said he's as gay as they come! Imagine what we queers will put ourselves through to curry societal favor. Elton himself will tell you that getting married to Renate was one of the biggest mistakes of his life -- and not because his wife was a terrible person. Ask him.

Perhaps then, it would be the wiser course of action for us to recognize heterosexuality as being in fact the norm, and the more preferred practice. Without being hateful or judgmental toward those whose proclivities run to homosexuality, it would make sense to gently encourage those wavering and impressionable young folks toward the path that will be healthier and happier and more functional.

God, what a scary proposition...

Except for lesbians, of course, (at least young cute ones) as they are quite pleasing to heterosexual men. As I said, these things are complicated.

I'm sure you intended that to be humorous.

My main point in the post, however, was not to criticize homosexuals

Coulda fooled me.

but to criticize people who attack the character of anyone who criticizes homosexuals, which you seem to do

OK. You have the right to criticize whomever you like, as do Brian and I.

Perhaps you can raise counterexamples, but it sure looks like anyone who makes any criticism of homosexual practices or homosexual organizations is just asking to have you label them as a bigot- no better than evil old Strom Thurmond or George Wallace.

Disingenuous, my friend. If someone is criticizing homosexual practices, good for them. I criticize heterosexual ones. Free speech. BUT when people are criticizing homosexual practices (and by the way, in all seriousness now, sex acts are sex acts; queers do the same things hets do -- we are talking about critiques of a partner's gender here) or groups, it almost always has to do with the law. If it's merely an ignorant yahoo or inexperienced person parrotting the Religious Reichers, well, that person is ignorant and inexperienced. You can't criticize, you can only try and help them see alternate views (if they are willing) and let them know that, yes, those ideas are but a few steps away from Falwell and Phelps. The idea is to teach, not scold. But in other instances, anti-gay statements are about law or politics and preventing queers from living their lives to the fullest. And yes, if someone says to me, I don't like gays on _______ grounds, and they should be barred by law from marrying and adopting kids and teaching and being a soldier, I am going to see that person as a bigot.

Here is the difference: You can criticize me all you want. You can hate me all you want. But when you demand that the law treat me differently than you because your orientation is superior to mine (in your opinion), I will fight it and call people what they are loudly and clearly. I may criticize, but I am not suggesting that any of your legal rights be stripped from you. Why is it that anti-gay folks need to show how anti they are by punishing us under law for not conforming to your beliefs?

Again, some critics of homosexuality are just hateful jerks, such as Fred Phelps. Some, such as Reverend Falwell are decent individuals with whom I might have some serious differences of opinion.

Have you met Jerry Falwell? Talked the issues with him? Met his wife? Interviewed him? Spent time with him? No? Then I respectfully state that you don't know whether he is decent or not. In my experience, no, he is neither honest nor decent. Here is my account of My Dinner with Jerry.

Oh -- and trust me: Fred Phelps is a whole lot nicer -- and more honest -- than Jerry Falwell. Yeah, Fred's a lot of things, few of them good. But if he says something to me, I know he's telling me what he believes to be true. Falwell is a showman, a tycoon, the Mr. Potter of Lynchburg, VA, a man who wanted to be president more than he wanted to be a preacher and for whom power appears to be the real deity.
Decent individuals with differing opinions? They exist. I have conservative Christian friends (even some in and around the exgay world) who believe fundamentalist teachings but don't believe civil law should have anything to do with what's in Romans or Leviticus. They treat me with love and respect and know that God will one day deal with whatever sins have been (or have not been) committed. God's the judge, not them -- and they believe GLBTs should not be punished under secular law because they see it as being unfair and antithetical to the stated precepts of America. Let go and let God deal with it, they say. Now THAT sounds decent. You can oppose homosexuality without having to impose second-class citizenship on us. Those are two separate things.

I don't necessarily agree with critics of homosexuality- particularly the religious arguments- but I don't think that it is fair to make them all out to be stupid or evil or bigoted.

Well, I am allowed to hold my opinions. Sorry, I'm not going to think someone is good and smart if they reject me on the basis of whom I love. Again, unlike these critics, I won't advocate punishing them under law for disagreeing with me. Scout's honor.

I don't think it's accurate to do so, nor does it further healthy public discourse.

We'll have to disagree on whether it's all healthy. Perhaps when your kind is flayed alive in media for all to judge. Perhaps when your kind has to bend over backwards to keep it together emotionally, spiritually, physically in a world that hates and dehumanizes them. Perhaps when you get a chance to experience being on the defensive, being expected to explain yourself and your kind at the whim of those oppressing you. Do I find these discussions of whether I am worthy to be a full, equal citizen healthy? Not for me. I would prefer to just live my life and be happy and equal. Certain hets and the laws of your country make that impossible. Healthy? What a laugh. But then you think pretending to be "straight" is healthy...

Kid Rock: And Wolf, if I could just make one more comment, I've been watching CNN here, and I keep hearing about the decision with the Supreme Court with the homosexual ruling. I just want to say I think it's a beautiful thing. Because if you really think about it, you know, the more gay men there are in the world, that just leaves more chicks for me and you, Wolf.

[ Comment deleted at poster's request, see next comment. ]

Shoot. Can you delete the above? Something seems to have gone horribly wrong in formatting.

Hopefully this will be a bit more legible:

One more thing, Al. No, all Christians don't buy into the biblical passages as being anti-gay. Try this site from Dr. Rembert Truluck. Also take a look at the Rev. John Shelby Spong's Why Christianity Must Change or Die and Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture, Mark D. Jordan's The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology, the Rev. Peter Gomes' The Good Book, and Daniel A. Helminiak's What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality. This is just a start; there is lots more...

This thread is very important, complicated and nuanced so my 2 cents should not be taken on the same level, but here goes: it seems clear to me that X% of gays are hard-wired that way, same as race (although race is seen by biologists as something of a construct, but that's another issue), as a result, what possible societal benefit could there be to condemning them or their sexual behavior as long as it conforms to other societal stipulations regarding sexual behavior, namely that loving monogomous sexual relationships are better than otherwise? But, we no longer legislate hetero conformity to this social preference, so in the interest of equal rights, we shouldn't legislate against consensual gay activity either.

This doesn't mean, though, that we can't or shouldn't discourage those, as Natalie put it, who are "fluid," from doing all they reasonably can to pursue social norms - they will be happier in the long run this way, about 1 million years of human social history would seem to indicate. If a person can't conform he/she can't conform, and that's okay, but society owes it to itself and to its members to favor the hetero, monogomous norm, ALTHOUGH THERE SHOULDN'T BE LEGISLATIVE PENALTIES specific to gay behavior.

I believe that those who espouse "family values" should be the ones most in favor of gay marriage. It only makes sense that if gay is gay, then we allow, even encourage, the most societally beneficial expression of that sexuality, ie marriage - committed, loving monogomous - as we do with hetero expression - to do otherwise seems self-defeating.

Equal under the law, societal norms pointing to the hetero-marriage ideal, this seems to be the best society can do to treat its individuals properly while maintaining the "healthiest" possible overall social environment.

Except that you can not treat an individual properly while having them treated inequitably under law. You do not treat an individual properly when you tell them they are "less than." Until any adult citizen can marry the individual of his or her choice, will moms and dads who happen to be gay, trans, or bi be judged on parenting skills rather than orientation or gender expression in court cases; can GLBTs live where they choose and work where they want and are qualified to do so; can we serve honestly, openly, and honorably in the military; etc., etc., then GLBT people and their allies are NOT being treated properly -- and, if one believes no one is equal until all are, well, then, NONE of us are being treated properly.

[Keep in mind that married hets get 1,049 federal rights. Gays who have been faithful, loving, and committed for decades -- even if they've married in Canada or Jim Crowed in Vermont -- get SHIT. And their kids... victims of the church and state. This is America? No, unless my civics teachers lied to me when they said all were equal here. I will assume that they passed on lessons in good faith and instead call your country (I don't consider it mine if I am not a fully equal citizen; I am a soon-to-be expatriate whose preparations to flee to a decent place with my kids are in progress) a name I find more accurate: Amerikkka.]

I am one who does not believe opposite-gender couples are preferable. Love, patience, responsibility, commitment, discipline, maturity, nurturing, generosity, kindness, dependability -- THESE are elements that define solid families, not the gender(s) of the parent(s). No one has ever been able to persuade me that man-woman couples are better. None of those arguments have come even close to being convincing for me in any way. And I have no patience after four decades to sit around discussing how the hets are better for society than me and my family. Not anymore.

Eric wrote: "If a person can't conform he/she can't conform, and that's okay,"

Would you insist they try? Isn't there something in your country's documents about protection from cruel and inhuman punishment? Oh my God!!! (Your words are quite painful to read, I must admit.) We need some putting ourselves into the other guy's shoes here...

It is difficult, I know, for the privileged to know what the underprivileged, disadvantaged, second-class experience. But I would think that as fellow humans, hets would not want to make other humans suffer. Perhaps society -- especially the well-meaning folks whose apathy or ignorance makes them unwitting parts of the problem -- should rethink that. Or pay for our passage to Canada.

(If this sounds as if I am picking on Eric, no, I am not. The comments are meant generally.)

Eric wrote this, as well: "...but society owes it to itself and to its members to favor the hetero, monogomous norm..."

WHY? And how?

Aren't I a member of society? How in the hell is this beneficial to me? And if it isn't beneficial to me and my family, why should I care about what is beneficial to you or a society that rejects those who don't conform? And who are you -- the expansive You -- to expect me to live my life according to your dictates, or else? But that is life as a queer person in the so-called land of the free.

Eric wrote: "ALTHOUGH THERE SHOULDN'T BE LEGISLATIVE PENALTIES specific to gay behavior."

Oh, that's very nice. We're second-class (by definition, if you advocate inclucating everyone that gay's ok if that's the best you can manage, but het is better -- unbelievable!! -- that is exactly what you are saying, that non-hets are second-class, second-best, inferior) for society's sake , and that's OK so long as it's not in writing?

I am so glad I am leaving this country. Soon, soon... though not soon enough. :)

Seriously, believe what you will -- people have the right to love, hate, and prefer what they will. Just keep your godforsaken law away from me and my kids and my life and keep your government away from me. I pay taxes. My money is coerced from me to finance your country's violent excursions and the educations of bigots' kids. I volunteer for charitable and community organizations. I help register voters. I follow the speed limit. I don't yell "Fire" in public places. I work to inform people of current events and about the doings of the Terrorist-in-Chief and his evil henchpersons in hopes of helping create an informed citizenry. And I am ashamed to say that I was born within these borders. It is the current US law along with societal admonishments to encourage heterosexuality / discourage homosexuality that causes this shame. I am not ashamed of me or of how God made me -- I am ashamed of your country's government, its laws, and the citizens who ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE.

I vehemently disagree with encouraging people to go het, go gay, go anything. I believe it is more beneficial for a person to be encouraged to be honest, decent, kind, compassionate, and, in short, the best Molly or Lawrence or Mufasa they can be. Imagine the poor questioning kid who is gay, doesn't know it (I didn't know for sure until I was in my 30s, but I've spent most of my life celibate), but is "encouraged" to be what his or her parents or teachers or clergypersons want him or her to be or what they feel it is best for society for him or her to be. That very scenario has sent too many people I know to therapy or their graves or worse. (And in case you don't know this, telling someone that they are "less than" is heard by many as they are better off dead, that society is better off with them gone.)

Telling a kid that het -- or homo or bi -- is superior to other orientations is, IMO, child abuse. What a horrid thing to say to someone! Do you expect queers to hear that shit and say, "OK, whatever works for you, oh precious heterosupremacist society"? Wow.

As far as the so-called "hetero marriage ideal," before spending so much time and energy discriminating against and dissecting the queers (essentially dehumanizing us, as usual, but that's our lot, isn't it?), congratulating yourselves for being born "society's ideal," and codifying that under supposedly secular law, how about working on making your marriages ideal?

The best wingnut comment I've heard about the sodomy-law repeal was from some yahoo pol who said he plans to get to work to fight the SCOTUS ruling and bring back anti-sodomy laws to Texas -- and he wants to add adultery to the law too. Give this guy points, at the very least, for consistency. I don't agree with this right-winger at all, natch, but him I can respect a bit.

Natalie,

Thanks much for all of that. Expressed with admirable patience and lucidity. I imagine it was a painful chore to lay out the obvious, and I appreciate your doing it.

I'm very sorry to hear that you are leaving the country, but of course I understand why you would. America is a country where a person who considers himself open-minded can actually feel benevolent condemning you for who you are (as long as he doesn't actually propose legislation against you).

It's maddening. It's maddening that those who hold these views don't see how much they come from ignorance. They can read "Romeo and Juliet" and feel the pain of characters who are forbidden to love who they love. But they can't see that suffering when it is felt by real people right in front of their fucking eyes.

Well, that's not fair--most people I run into who have a casual prejudice against queers don't spend a lot of time with queers right in front of their eyes. They depend on stereotypes and statistics and scary descriptions of sexual practices delivered secondhand. I suppose when your main impression of homosexuals is a fist shoved up an anus, you might tend to feel it is an "unhealthy" lifestyle.

I'm straight. A Kinsey zero. Fortunately, I've never had any doubts about my sexual identity. But I didn't have any idea that I was a member of a privileged group in this way until I developed good friends who are gay. I grew up believing, as many people do, that anti-gay prejudice really isn't prejudice--it's about looking down on people who do bad things, like shoplifters or peepers.

I was ignorant of the wholly unnecessary suffering this societal view visited upon people who didn't ask for it. I was a bigot.

And that's the right term for someone who can hold that society should use a stigma to "encourage" gays to pretend they are not who they are. Anyone who could look at a 16-year-old kid struggling with the feelings he has when he sees the other guys in the locker-room shower and say to this kid, "You should be ashamed. That's what's best for society," deserves to be called a bigot.

Anyway, Natalie, as a citizen of the country you are leaving: Thanks for your generous contributions to our society. Sorry we couldn't manage to respect you.

I realize this is an extraordinarily emotional issue, rightly so, but I believe a fair amount of my position has been miscontrued: "best" for society can be defined on many levels - religious, moral, biology (ie propagation of the species), and most if not all of these standards favor monogomous heterosexuality as the standard. BUT, what I was primarily referring to when I mentioned "best" societal norms, is the, I believe, uncontested difficulties of living a gay lifestyle, internal and external. You can remove ALL the legal barriers, and I am in favor of removing those legal barriers, (including to gay marriage, which I believed I had clearly stated above) and you still will have all kinds of psychological, cultural, even physical (if you include having children) issues to deal with that you (a generic, nonspecific "you) would not have to deal with if you were straight. This isn't a value judgment, simply an observation of fact.

I also thought I made it clear that I believe a high percentage of gays are born that way, end of story, and attempts to persuade them to "go straight" can only be pointless at best and detrimental at worst. However, for the "fluid," if they are truly fluid, then the choice between gay and straight should not be seen as neutral or even or inconsequential because of the reasons stated above.

I have seen what VERY close relatives and friends have gone through coming to terms with their homosexuality, some Christian, some not, all kinds of other variables - every single one of them has told me it is not a frame of reference or a process they would wish on anyone. In this instance, what I have been told by those who have gone through it exactly reinforces what I would guess from living in this real world, not the world where all choices are neutral and all lifestyles are equal, which does not exist, including outside of the United States.

I believe the SCOTUS decision confirms that we as a country are ready to say it is time to stop persecuting gays, and it is time for the government to getthe hell out of the bedrooms of consenting adults. This is excellent and we are all better off for it, but it does not mean the nation as a whole believes that all types of relationships are created equal - many types of relationships are disapproved of to varying degrees: adulterous, indiscriminate, age-inappropriate, etc, etc; none of these are legislated against anymore and that is good and humane, but society will never view all relationships equally, not from many perspectives - public health, child-rearing, propagation of the species, religious, etc. - nor should it be expected to. You can demand personal respect and legal equality, but it is too much to demand that society have the same attitude toward every kind of relationship. FRom a SOCIETAL standpoint, they simply aren't all equal.

I absolutely refuse to be labeled or insinuated as a bigot in this regard.

Eric,

You can remove ALL the legal barriers, and I am in favor of removing those legal barriers, (including to gay marriage, which I believed I had clearly stated above) and you still will have all kinds of psychological, cultural, even physical (if you include having children) issues to deal with that you (a generic, nonspecific "you) would not have to deal with if you were straight. This isn't a value judgment, simply an observation of fact.

2) society already expresses itself in this regard in a million and public and private ways, no need to "do" anything.
1) if one believes in any of the major world religions, homosexuality is condemned to varying degrees, but at minimum discouraged - this is a problem

if one wants children in a homosexual relationship - this is a problem

if one wants to be judged by society as an individual and not a stereotype, then being openly homosexual is a problem - but if one isn't open then one is living a lie - this is a problem, which problem is lesser?

if one wants the approval of everyone in the family, including Aunt Winnie, this may be a problem

If one wants to play professional sports, and especially if one is a man, this is an ENORMOUS problem

if one wishes to go through life without being abused or taunted by bigots, this is a problem

how many do you need? I didn't say it SHOULD be this way, (although I am a Christian and have a hard time completely ignoring the "sin" issue, but I am not a hardcore Christian, I am not a literalist or a fundamentalist) I am simply saying it IS this way, and IF a person has a choice in the matter, it is only logical that they be encouraged to follow the path of least resistance - life is hard enough without complicating it unnecessarily. If it is not a choice, then carry on and do your best - I wish you nothing but peace and happiness.

And in case there is any doubt, I like and respect you Natalie, am sad you are leaving this country as we need as many conscientious, principled, courageous citizens and parents as we can get, and I hope you find peace and happiness for you and yours wherever you may seek it.

Eric,

I'm having a difficult time determining where exactly you stand on this subject.

You say that gays are "abused and taunted by bigots," then say

I didn't say it SHOULD be this way, (although I am a Christian and have a hard time completely ignoring the "sin" issue...)

I have said it all very carefully, twice: equal under the law, treat individuals with respect but don't encourage it - it may be the only choice for individuals but is not the best course for society as a whole. Period.

Eric, I'm not calling you a bigot. That's exactly why I took pains to say that I was referring to a general "you," and not you personally. However, and I say this because I deal with this sort of thing every day I draw breath, you have no choice over how people see you, label you, speak about you, whether directly or as an insinuation. People label me erroneously all the time. It is dehumanizing, humiliating, and worse. But other than offering my two cents, there really isn't a damned thing I can do about it save avoiding the labelers as best I can.

As far as bigots go, there are folks I know whom I believe are bigots. They believe they are not. We have to agree to disagree in those instances. I wouldn't say that applies here -- your posting above was theoretical, I assume, and not representative necessarily of your personal point of view. (Noting that there are millions of Christians who do not believe that homosexuality is sinful. I personally believe homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality. I believe wanton promiscuity is sinful, but I am not about to go about judging people's lives or telling them that they -- and only they -- can't marry, etc. You and I agree on this: If they change the law, that won't fix anti-gay attitudes. If someone is anti-gay and it doesn't affect my life, other than bruised feelings perhaps -- BFD -- whatever. That is their right. But I've spent far too much of my life trying to make myself likeable and acceptable on other people's terms. Pardon my profanity, but fuck them. Change the law and leave me the hell alone -- that's my position. I will do my best to treat everyone, even bigots and adversaries, with as much kindness and compassion as possible. I will even do my level best to refrain from calling people bigots unless it is necessary to do so (and sometimes it is). But I'm done with sucking up to society -- there is nothing in it for me.

By the way, in terms of the sexually "fluid," making the het choice is not always -- or even mostly always -- the happiest choice for that person. Unhappy, tortured people who "settle" for the benefit of others do not do society any good -- they only add sadness and misery to an already screwed-up world.

Also, in terms of society regenerating itself, I don't see that as a concern at all. Does anyone seriously see a population shortage on the way? Our problem is TOO MANY PEOPLE.

I believe I grok your position, and if so, I know that you are correct. Heterosexuality ISN'T superior and making it largely compulsory ISN'T a good thing. In stupid society's eyes, however, it is, and society calls the shots. Too bad for the rest of us.

But do not be sad that I am escaping! Getting my family out of this country is the best thing that could happen; I've been planning this for eons. I've been bouncing off the walls lately with joy thanks to the thought that by end 2003, we'll be out of here! It'll be great. The Internet is practically everywhere. Recent developments in Canada mean I won't have to go too far away from my parents. After suffering through 15 months of terribly difficult Dutch lessons -- the initial plan was to flee to Amsterdam, which was switched to Belgium after the Netherlands joined Bush's Coalition of the Killing; I DO NOT suffer warmongers gladly -- ending up speaking English and French in the Great White North will be a treat! And I'm happiest in cooler climates anyway.

Final thing: Christians shouldn't taunt and abuse people they consider sinners. In fact, they shouldn't taunt and abuse anyone. In fact, they're supposed to leave the punishing to the Creator and focus on the logs in their own eyes.

Brian, excellent direct questions!

As for society having a neutral view of all sexual orientations, I think that's the only fair, rational course. Individuals will have whatever views, prejudices, preferences, beliefs, whatever they hold as core values, but as a whole, I can only find a societal view that picks a "favorite" completely immoral and worthless. And in the case of a manmade construct that brags to the rest of the planet and to its captives (those forced into citizenship by virtue of their births' geographical location) about being the greatest country, the land of liberty, land of the free and home of the slave, er, brave, the land where everyone is equal... well, it's preposterous, it's presumptuous, it's unforgiveably and unattractively arrogant, it's disgusting. Because the boast is nothing more than a goddamned lie. As I grew up, I carried the notion of equality for all as a desperate hope, a far-off goal, a not-quite-impossible dream. Didn't take long before I realized that precious society has little interest in everyone being equal under law. What hope I have lies in activism and attrition -- not in the American people.

Don't get me wrong, I hate and fear your government. Absolutely. I am anti-American if you define that as being opposed to the government and the politicians (and add the corporations who own them too). But if you define the term as being against the people, then it would not apply to me: I love and pity the American people. I feel infinite gratitude for those who work for true justice and equality. I do feel afraid of bigots, but there is lots of experience to explain that. But more than that, I fear for the souls of the ones working so hard to keep GLBTs inferior and oppressed, those who harbor the thought that GLBTs are less than hets/sinful/etc., and those who take no stand or do nothing to foster equality for all. I see all those folks as being part of the problem, but God will deal with them if, when, and/or as She sees fit. Me, I want to focus on landing in a place of equality, a home where I actually can pursue happiness, something impossible for most of my kind in your country.

Eric,

I still don't know what you propose when you say "don't encourage it." Don't encourage it how? Teach children that it is shameful? Try to get queers to keep their orientation a secret?

This statement isn't entirely clear:

...it may be the only choice for individuals but is not the best course for society as a whole.

Natalie,

Damn. Now *I* want to move to Canada.

Didn't mean to imply earlier that I was sad for you--clearly your hatred for and fear of this country's government are justified (HEY, HOMOPHOBES--SEE HOW HATE BREEDS HATE?), and leaving is a positive, not negative, event for you. I don't think I could love a country that demeaned me (to use Justice Kennedy's word), either.

I'm just sorry to see the U.S. lose another champion of justice. But clearly Canada deserves your loyalty more.

Natalie- I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you out here. I will treat you as an equal, and have no desire or instinct to stigmatize you based on sexual preference. I send you love and respect.

At the same time, equal treatment means that I'm going to be straight with you. You are being irrational and hysterical. I'm not going to bend over backwards to appease a hysterical woman. I can already imagine the howls of protest accusing me of misogyny or bigotry or whatever.

None of that will turn the nonsense you're spouting into truth, however. The fact that you are very adamant and emotional does not therefore mean that you are right. The fact that your feelings are easily hurt does not mean that I'm going to nod my head and go along with whatever you say. Nor does it make me a bigot or a hater, nor does it constitute "dehumanization."

You do not impress me in the least with the nonsense about "AmeriKKKa." That's a lot of crap. The "terrorist in chief" stuff is just dumb name calling with no substance.

Gays are not being oppressed in America. You do not get carted off to jail for being gay. You can own property, go to work, pretty much anything anyone else can do.

Now, you may have some legitimate issues about the legal protection of gay partnerships. We can discuss those. I'd say that it's none of the army's business who you're sleeping with on your own time, for starters. There are doubtless plenty of other legitimate issues that haven't even occured to me.

Whatever legitimate issues you may have, you're way the hell out of line with "AmeriKKKa." There's no excuse for that. In context, I'll take this for cheap emotional leftist commie nonsense more than any particularly gay issue.

Indeed, even someone bending over backwards to make nice such as Eric Olsen stands suspect of bigotry and prejudice. Now, that part I will put off mostly on Brian rather than you. Still, you write:

Eric wrote: "If a person can't conform he/she can't conform, and that's okay,"

Would you insist they try? Isn't there something in your country's documents about protection from cruel and inhuman punishment?.

Natalie, again I want to send you love and understanding, but this statement is just goddam stupid. How do you get "cruel and unusual punishment" from "that's ok"? Take a deep breath, and think again.

You have clearly mistaken or misinterpreted my comments here in a dozen different silly ways that a person of your obvious intelligence just shouldn't. I doubt this comes from dishonesty. I take it as more likely from emotional traumas, automatically shunting me off into your pre-imagined categories.

Still, to pick one example, you write: "How is someone better off having sex they hate or no sex at all JUST TO MAKE YOU AND THE RELIGIOUS REICH HAPPY?" I never said anything close to that.

Now, if you want to run off to Canada, go ahead. That'll show all us evil homophobes and warmongers. If you want to renounce your country, giving up all the benefits of being an American, that's your right...and YOUR loss.

I want all individuals to be told they can and should be who they are. I want them to be happy as long as that happiness does not harm society. I do not believe consensual relationships between adults harms society. But I want them to know the difficulties that lie ahead, and if there is a choice, for them to choose the path of least resistance because life is difficult enough as it is. Natalie's pain and anguish reinforces the difficulties I have seen endured - internal as well as external - by those close to me who have gone through this struggle.

As to society's position: I want it (society's position) to be legally neutral and I want individuals treated as if it were neutral, but I do see a hierarchy of relationships based upon nature, religion, and morality. I don't agree that our biggest problem is that we have too many people. A declining population is a much bigger problem in the long run than overpopulation, which is rather brutally self-limiting. Right now we, Japan, Western Europe are starting to face issues of underpopulation, namely supporting the aging baby boomer population. The ideal is slow sustainable growth, not stasis, not decline. We do need to continue to reproduce, this is a biologically hetero function, and one that is ingrained in human society after eons of struggle. It is only in the very recent past that the human population has grown exponentially - survival of the species has been an issue since we climbed down from trees. So this is a real issue.

Next, all of the world's monotheistic religions favor monogomous hetero sexual relationships that result in children - this is the most favored relationship of the religions that form the moral underpinnings of most of the world's cultures apart from Asia. This cannot be ignored, should not be ignored. It's just the way it is.

That doesn't mean disapproval, that doesn't mean intolerance, that doesn't mean discrimination, that means in a trans-societal sense, this is the most highly approved form of relationship. That's all it means.

Does this translate to some ideal percentage of the population for gays, etc? No, but it means populations with TOO high percentages of nonreproducing households will decline.

Natalie- I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you out here. I will treat you as an equal, and have no desire or instinct to stigmatize you based on sexual preference. I send you love and respect.

At the same time, equal treatment means that I'm going to be straight with you. You are being irrational and hysterical.


That's your view. OK.

I'm not going to bend over backwards to appease a hysterical woman.

How about a hysterical man? ;-)

I can already imagine the howls of protest accusing me of misogyny or bigotry or whatever.

Nah. I do have a sense of humor that gets dusted off for use every decade or so. You are amusing me greatly.

You do not impress me in the least with the nonsense about "AmeriKKKa." That's a lot of crap.

You entitled to your opinion. And who was trying to impress you or anyone else?

The "terrorist in chief" stuff is just dumb name calling with no substance.

You are wrong about that. But I have no interest in debating the invasion and the US-led terror with you.

Gays are not being oppressed in America. You do not get carted off to jail for being gay. You can own property, go to work, pretty much anything anyone else can do.

You are wrong, but given that you've decided you know the score, why should I waste my time? Let me just refer you to a Maryland organization called Free State Justice and a national one called Human Rights Campaign. They can speak to issues, oppression, and stats.

Whatever legitimate issues you may have, you're way the hell out of line with "AmeriKKKa."


When did my right to free speech go through the window? I have the right to call this construct anything I want. :)

Indeed, even someone bending over backwards to make nice such as Eric Olsen stands suspect of bigotry and prejudice. Now, that part I will put off mostly on Brian rather than you. Still, you write:

Eric wrote: "If a person can't conform he/she can't conform, and that's okay,"

Would you insist they try? Isn't there something in your country's documents about protection from cruel and inhuman punishment?.

Natalie, again I want to send you love and understanding

Um, keep it, thanks. :)


but this statement is just goddam stupid. How do you get "cruel and unusual punishment" from "that's ok"? Take a deep breath, and think again.

Context. Go back and read the entire thing. Perhaps I did not quote enough of what Eric wrote. But I will reiterate again, I was not calling Eric a bigot, and that's the last time I will address that.

You have clearly mistaken or misinterpreted my comments here in a dozen different silly ways that a person of your obvious intelligence just shouldn't. I doubt this comes from dishonesty. I take it as more likely from emotional traumas, automatically shunting me off into your pre-imagined categories.

Frankly, I've been talking with other people and not giving a thought to you at all. I hadn't made any major assumptions about you at all. Not because of anything negative, by any means; it's just that the conversation had gotten to be between me, Eric, and Brian, so they were the ones whose thoughts I perused after my initial posting on this topic. If you think my thoughts and experiences are crap, that's cool. But no, I hadn't shunted you anywhere. And I have only three categories: Friend, Foe, Don't Know. If anything, you'd be in the last one.

Still, to pick one example, you write: "How is someone better off having sex they hate or no sex at all JUST TO MAKE YOU AND THE RELIGIOUS REICH HAPPY?" I never said anything close to that.

OK. My comment was in reaction to this statement: "One is that any individual will tend to be better off being straight (and preferably monogamous) rather than gay in numerous ways. They get to have children and blend into society better in myriad ways. It just tends to work out better."

I equated "blending into society better... work out better" with "having [horrible] sex or no sex at all just to make you [AGAIN, GENERAL YOU, NOT ERIC AND NOT AL BARKER SPECIFICALLY!] and the religious reich happy." Isn't the idea that if gays are "discreet" and "blend in," they and society will be better off? My point is that I believe the idea to be a load of codswallop.

Now, if you want to run off to Canada, go ahead. That'll show all us evil homophobes and warmongers.

You really don't get it. I am not running to show you or anyone else. Why in the world would you or anyone else care unless you had a personal relationship with me? :) I am running for the benefit and joy of me and my family. Big difference, mate.


If you want to renounce your country

I don't feel I ever had one to renounce. I feel at home all over the planet; in fact, I feel more at home in Europe and Canada than on your shores.

giving up all the benefits of being an American


Jingoists give me that crap all the time too. It would amuse me if I weren't so bored with that statement. I've been alive nearly 42 years, Al. Not that long a time, but neither am I the proverbial spring chicken. I am still awaiting a benefit. Anything I like here I have found -- and usually better -- elsewhere. Yes, I haven't been murdered or physically mained by the state. But as I believe one is better dead than unequal, I don't particularly find that beneficial. Survival is not my number-one issue; quality of life and the state of my soul are the things most important to me after my kids (oh, and you better believe my son is not permitted to join the Boy Scouts of America -- because I am a good, caring mom and I only want quality around my children). Call me stupid, hysterical, a bad parent, irrational, whatever. You are not in the room with me; you do not know my mood, my demeanor, what is traveling through my mind. Anything you tar me with is merely your opinion or assumption, and you are, again, entitled. But frankly, you're not doing too well on that score. That's the downside to message-board discussions. Online conversation makes understanding others more difficult than in meatspace or over a voice line at times. Especially when differing sides are so far apart that they probably can't have a meaningful or productive discussion.

that's your right.

That's right. And in Canada, I can marry the woman of my dreams. They acknowledge my right to do so there. Gotta love it! :D

..and YOUR loss.

I've heard that before. It sounded arrogant then too. :)

From where I sit, darlin', it's all GAIN for me and mine.

Naturally, I wish you all good luck. God bless you, and God bless the people who live in America.

I've been at the computer all day. Going to go catch some sunshine. Later, gorgeous.

Natalie: I notice your link to Free State Justice is being redirected to a Christian website. There's another link here.

Also, I should note, for the sake of completeness, Canada as a whole doesn't necessarily compare favorably (yet) with the States in terms of same sex rights. The recent landmark decision came in Ontario, and the federal government is expected to try to pass legislation of its own in the fall. There will likely be a fight over it here in Alberta, where Klein has vowed to invoke the notwithstanding clause if such a bill passes.

Al: Natalie's reply to you is more than adequate, but let me just add that frankly, I'd be more sympathetic to your complaints about other people's intolerance and "pre-imagined categories" if you weren't gibbering in every other post about "emotional leftist commie nonsense" or some variant thereof. A word to the wise: your credibility shrinks a little bit every time you do this.

Although I haven't hurled it directly at anyone, I think "bigotry" is a relevant word to this topic.

Here's why:

People who believe heterosexuality to be superior to homosexuality without a rational basis are bigots. They have every right to hold this irrational view, of course, but it is impossible to hold one's self above an entire group of people for no good reason without at the same time being a bigot. It simply can't be done.

"Without a rational basis" is, of course, key. Although I have yet to encounter an argument against queers that actually approaches solid reasoning, I remain open to the theoretical possibility that there is one.

Hence, I can't confidently call anyone a bigot without hearing the support they have for their feelings of superiority. So the topic here, as I see it, is not so much "Bigotry!" as it is "Bigotry?" When faced with someone who says they sit higher than others in the hierarchy, I think the thing to so is to figure out whether that conviction is the result of sound reasoning or...something less.

So far, here is what is on the table.

Heterosexual relationships are superior to homosexual relationships because...

1) God says so.

2) I just feel that way.

3) Homosexuals are ostracized in our society.

4) The survival of the human species is threatened by homosexuality.

As far as I'm concerned, none of these pass muster. A person's individual conception of God does not count as reason. "I just feel that way" also doesn't count. Go ahead and feel that way--but that's pretty much the definition of bigotry.

Arguing that anti-gay prejudice itself is an argument for anti-gay prejudice is laughable. Finally, that the survival of the human species would be threatened by society's neutral acceptance of homosexuality is the most laughable of all. What's the theory here--we'd all turn gay?

If I have missed a key point, I'm open to being corrected. Please fill in the blank with a statement that stands the test of reason:

Heterosexual relationships are superior to homosexual relationships because...

More gay men equals fewer Metallica fans, so homosexuality is automatically a good thing. If gays got married, they would keep nicer lawns than straights, so property values would go up. Also, maybe that guy on the House and Garden channel would elope and put us out of our misery. And don't forget--lesbians are really hot! They have them on the Howard Stern show.

Also, if gays could marry, there'd be guys in wedding dresses on the cover of Modern Bride magazine. That's not a good thing or a bad thing, necessarily, but it's just something to keep in mind as we continue this debate.

LOL... I want to shake your hand, Mike!

Dr. Slack, thanks for the link and the info. I had heard things were rough in Alberta... In any case, there are a few months before we depart. I will be watching what's going on up north with rabid interest. And there is always Belgium, which I adore.

Since nothing I say "counts," let's step aside for a moment: if Al is going to be chided for hyperbole, I will ask Brain if he realizes how pedantic and smug he sounds much of the time? My conception of God doesn't count? Does the planet's conception of God count? The biological future of the human race doesn't count? Is just absurd? I was stating the underlying reasons for mankind's near universal societal disapproval of homosexuality - it had to come from somewhere - but that just doesn't count.

The question is not "superiority" - don't change the terms, don't put words in my mouth, don't demand - the question is does society have the right to establish norms? The answer is "yes," as long as the consequences of living outside those norms is not overly severe, ie, bear legal sanctions or personal subjugation. Is this a fine line? Yes it is. But the country appears mature enough to walk that line without legal sanctions to oppress those outside this particular norm. Good, I'm glad. But as with every other topic you discuss, Brian, it isn't all or nothing. This is the real world.

mike,

Metallica rocks. Fairy.

Eric,

Your questions...

My conception of God doesn't count?

Does the planet's conception of God count?

The biological future of the human race doesn't count?

Is just absurd?

I was stating the underlying reasons for mankind's near universal societal disapproval of homosexuality...

The question is not "superiority" - don't change the terms, don't put words in my mouth...

...I do see a hierarchy of relationships based upon nature, religion, and morality.

...the question is does society have the right to establish norms?

...as with every other topic you discuss, Brian, it isn't all or nothing. This is the real world.

I thought you missed Eric's first question but I see it was the unwritten premise of your last post.

Well now, Brian, I find it HIGHLY amusing that YOU of anyone would accuse me of acting "superior." I do thank you for linking back to the "poopy pants" post. I'll note that the Blogcritics copy of this item has the distinction of being the only post ever CENSORED, removed by Eric Olsen (though he was very clear that this was NOT at your request). [I'll take this opportunity to point out that Eric Olsen is a no-good, dirty bastard. XOX.]

I do not call everyone who disagrees with me a commie, mostly only you. And you deserve it. You accuse me of ad hominem attacks, but note that when I make a personal criticism, I am specific about what statements form the basis of justification. Generally I avoid personal criticism unless someone is being just highly egregious.

"Highly egregious" will include purposeful misrepresentation, such as flatly fabricating obviously stupid quotes to put in my mouth, for example: "People who consider gays to be inferior are not in fact bigots" I never said that, nor anything resembling that. Yet there it is in quote marks.

It was a similar display of dishonesty that got you slammed for being childish before. Is that a personal criticism? Yes. Did you then and do you now deserve it? Yes.

However, the poopy pants post does NOT constitute treating you like a child. It's that you act like a child, and I'm calling you out for it. I am in fact insisting on treating you like an accountable adult. Again, the childishness in question comes from not simply lying, but making up obvious lies that can be easily exposed in a matter of seconds. This shows the low developmental level of a child who does not see how their little outburst is obviously going to come right back on them.

You don't get to just have a childish tantrum, making up silly shit and expecting people to accept it as fact. This made up quote for me in your last installment, for example, constitutes just the type of childish outburst that earned you the "poopy pants" rant.

You make things up wholecloth, and knowingly misrepresent my position. Then you get all pissy when I call you out on it.

Speaking of calling names, you accuse apparently Eric and I of "rampant homophobia." On what basis? You accuse us of claiming that homosexuals are morally inferior. Both of us have been careful to do nothing of the sort. Then you accuse ME of ad hominem attacks.

If you don't like being accused of having poopy pants, then don't be making up silly lies and having childish outbursts.

If you don't like being called a commie liberal, then don't be constantly taking the most predictable and indefensible extreme left wing position on every issue, lacking nuance or any consideration of adaptation to contrary facts on the ground.

To summarize, then, the proposition of the original post here is not at all to criticize homosexuals, but to criticize YOU and yours for your gross intolerance of any conflicting viewpoint. Eric and I have tried to generate careful, nuanced & sympathetic thinking on some complex issues. Disappointed that we are not the hateful caricatures you wish to attack, you simply made up quotes and arguments for us, then attacked us for them. Then you capped it off by accusing us of "rampant homophobia." QED.

And thanks for playing "That's my Brian."

Al,

True, you never said the "quote" in question. I didn't mean to imply you said those words. In context, I called those words a "proposition."

Debates often begin with propositions (God forbid that should happen here on Blogcritics--there'd be nowhere to run!), and they are often set off with quotes (or introduced with "Resolved:...").

I would correct the proposition to read as follows, though: "People who consider gays to be inferior are not necessarily bigots."

I believe this is what you have proposed throughout this thread.

Definition of
bigot

- a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

(Taken from Merriam-Webster OnLine).

From that definition, Brian's statement that if "one has no rational basis for this attitude and treatment, one is a bigot" is too generalized.

Further more, from reading these posts it would seem to me that Al, Brian, and Natalie are all "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions," which in following the definition would make them bigots.

Also, I'd also like to add that although somethings are black and white, I don't believe forcing the issue of homosexuality to be black and white makes it just that. It is a complex issue, and one must see that some people just don't understand enough about the issue to completely make a black and white choice. A hetero can empathize with a homosexual's struggles with society but still have there own moral issues that may say homosexuality is wrong. If a homosexual can struggle with their own sexuality (and they do, I have a friend who is struggling with it now), a heterosexual can also struggle with accepting that homosexual's sexuality. Therefore, the issue is not black and white.

Going back to the moral issue; a moral issue is a good reason to reject something. It is one's own and no one else can say it is wrong or incorrect -- that includes Brian. To deem that someone's religious beliefs is not a good reason to reject homosexuality is acting superior by giving yourself the power to deem things are right or wrong.


This was written in the heat of the moment and thus exact phrases should not be taken as stone.

From that definition, Brian's statement that if "one has no rational basis for this attitude and treatment, one is a bigot" is too generalized.

oops, I didn't mean too generalized, I meant too narrowed.

I swear I have other things to attend to so this really will be my last comment on the subject unless human nature changes dramatically:

I don't think anyone involved in this discussion is a bigot. I think Natalie is an open and sensitive person who has struggled mightily to be understood by society and feels beaten down by the process. I feel badly about this and wish it were not so. She should find peace wherever she can even if it is outside this country, though this saddens me. This country is pretty red-blooded and vigorously masculine in its conception of itself and in its dealings with the world - if one is constitutionally opposed to this kind of political psychology maybe leaving IS the only real answer. This political psychology, like all psychologies, has its good and bad points - if the bad outweighs the good, maybe it isn't worth fighting past a certain point, a point which Natalie seems to have reached.

I also don't think Brian is a bigot, but based upon what I have gathered, the wholesale rejection of a clearly narrow-minded Christian fundamentalist past has resulted in a trajectory that is in some ways equally narrow-minded and dogmatic. My purely PERSONAL opinion is that it is the dogmatism best rejected, not the Christianity, or even the current hard leftism. One can be a leftist or a Christian without being dogmatic.

I also don't believe Al is a bigot: he is a libertarian, individualist, freethinker who casts a rather jaundiced eye on all extreme positions. His intention all along seems clearly to me to have been one of defending society's right to make distinctions, even preferences, without subjecting those who do not, or can not, conform to those preferences to legal penalties or personal ostracism. One may feel free to reject his point of view without labeling him a bigot or questioning his basic good will.

Another issue that has been clouded here is the difference between how individuals and groups are treated: society can have a policy that attaches approval rankings to various "lifestyles" in any number of arenas, sexual and otherwise, while still protecting the rights of individuals and not holding them responsible for membership in a less-than-fully-approved group. If it isn't your fault, it isn't your fault and you shouldn't be individually punished - I believe the country has arrived at this level of acceptance now. This is infinitely better than the American social stance of 100, 50 or 5 years ago, or even 2 weeks ago. This is progress: if you can't help it, I will not make you suffer for it. But that doesn't mean that as a culture we can't make distinctions between lifestyles we think are "better" than others: lifestyles not individuals. I am not better than you AS AN INDIVIDUAL because my lifestyle happens to correspond with the societal norm in this one arena. I am sure there are other arenas where my lifestyle is not in the "most preferred" group and yours is. Since we all want some slack, we must all cut some slack.

Thanks Visual for the thoughts and tacit support. Now I must move on.

Good posting, Eric. No worries, I suspect we all support you, even if we don't agree with particular opinions of yours.

Visual, you wrote: "Going back to the moral issue; a moral issue is a good reason to reject something. It is one's own and no one else can say it is wrong or incorrect -- that includes Brian."

I would agree. I reject much of society's dictates on moral grounds. But actually, anyone can say they believe something to be wrong or incorrect. And the person to whom they are speaking can tell them to stuff it in words either kind or cruel. Free speech works that way. :)

And... "To deem that someone's religious beliefs is not a good reason to reject homosexuality is acting superior by giving yourself the power to deem things are right or wrong."

Perhaps. But there is a small bit of equality that exists, in that the person with the aforementioned religious beliefs has given him or herself the power to deem homosexuality right or wrong, so they are acting superior as well. As far as that goes, we are all guilty. If you believe something is true or false, of course you will see your position as being superior to its opposite -- otherwise, you would not believe what you believe.

Thanks Natalie, I appreciate that.

visual,

Going back to the moral issue; a moral issue is a good reason to reject something. It is one's own and no one else can say it is wrong or incorrect -- that includes Brian.

But that doesn't mean that as a culture we can't make distinctions between lifestyles we think are "better" than others: lifestyles not individuals.

They are EXACTLY vague and nonspecific social norms - that's the entire point. The norms aren't codified into law, we do not wish to see individuals persecuted for failing to meet these norms for the reasons already stated until the cows came home and sat on the couch, they are exactly vague and general feelings that some relationships are more advantageous to the perpetuation of the species, more fitting NEAR UNIVERSAL religious and cutural preferences. Nothing has to be done that isn't already being done other than finish the process of protecting individual legal rights, ultimately govermental sanction of same-sex marriage, which is much closer to the societal norm of committed monogomous relationships than the enforced "singlehood" now the law of the land. At this point you seem to arguing just to argue - I see nothing tanglible that separates our positions.

I have read this entire post - from top to bottom of thread and here is what I think:

Al - A guy who is just what he says he is, a libertarian who wants people to be free to be happy, but would like a little morality and common sense thrown in for good measure.

Eric - A middle American dad who has close ties to individuals struggling with their sexual identity and doesn't want his kids to be encouraged to go a route that will lead them to feeling socially repressed, depressed, rejected or out the bounds of what is normal.

Natalie - A lesbian mother who knows what bigotry is like from both sides of the fence - and has three strikes against her, black, lesbian and female in that order. Who can blame her for being agitated and defensive?

Brian - A liberal trying WAY TOO HARD to prove he is there championing the little guy, the downtrodden, the oppressed and in the process looking like a completely irrational loon.

All of you are right, all of you are wrong - but none of you are bigots or want anyone to be oppressed for being who they are. That is excellent.

How about going after the real enemy, people who actually hate gays? Defeat their agenda and you will have won the sweetest victory. Just a hint, it isn't George Bush, but it might be John Ashcroft.

Eric,

On the one hand, you're right. Since you propose no action whatsoever on the part of society (right?) we're not very far apart. I thought when you said "norms," that automatically meant taboos or stigmas, which tend to be how norms are instituted in society.

Not to be gross or anything, but here's an example of a social norm enforced by a stigma: It is considered rude to fart in an enclosed space populated by other people. It's not illegal--you couldn't prosecute or sue someone for doing it. But there is definitely a social stigma attached to it. We all pretty much agree that someone who would do such a thing is a bit lower on the social scale than the rest of us (with solid reason, btw--this person's actions directly effect, in a real way, the people around him or her), and we pass along this social norm to our children and peers. It is a social norm enforced not by law but by a general and consistent attitude that public farters are...nasty.

What I thought you were proposing was a social norm that establishes homosexual behavior in a similar category--a stigmatized behavior that is not illegal but nonetheless is considered...nasty. A social norm against gayness, as I see it, would be enforced by teaching children--and generally confirming to each other--that we all agree that homosexual relationships are "bad" and "other" and not to be desired.

Perhaps I was reading too much into the word "norm." I still don't know what you mean by it, but as far as I can tell you don't mean what I generally think of as a norm--a certain non-legal rule that society establishes informally but that nonetheless is very real and has specific manifestations.

If a social norm isn't enforced in any way, as far as I'm concerned it isn't really a "norm." In fact, it doesn't even exist. Norms are defined by the fact that society (or a sub-society) knows and enforces them. No enforcement--no norm.

Now I wasn't really calling Al, Brian, or Natalie a bigot. I was just merely trying to make a point about throwing out definitions of words to define someone.

On the other thing, as what I wrote wasn't meant in stone, I feel that Natalie's response put what I wanted to really say perfectly.

Perhaps. But there is a small bit of equality that exists, in that the person with the aforementioned religious beliefs has given him or herself the power to deem homosexuality right or wrong, so they are acting superior as well. As far as that goes, we are all guilty. If you believe something is true or false, of course you will see your position as being superior to its opposite -- otherwise, you would not believe what you believe

Thank you Natalie.

Anyway, the superiority thing was meant to point out the matter that Brian was calling out Eric's opinions to be the result of Eric thinking one side superior to the other, all the while Brian seemed to believe himself superior to everyone else. A little hypocrisy there if you ask me.

visual,

Under your rules, how would anyone ever be able to raise the subject of bigotry? Wouldn't they always, simply by raising it, be making themselves "superior"?

It is true that I think a bias against gays is tantamount to racism. It's true that I deplore that bias in the same way that I deplore racism. I think that this is an important civil-rights matter and that our society is diminished by its lack of resolution. And I am no more "tolerant" of anti-gay views than I am of anti-Black or anti-woman views. When I encounter them, I call them what they are.

This means I think I'm "superior"? I have to shut up about this issue to be considered fair? I have to show "tolerance" toward what I see as bigotry?

Brian,

I am not trying to make an argument for myself. I am merely trying to point out flaws in your arguments.

You started the bigotry thing by throwing out definitions of what bigotry is. However, by the written definition of what it is, anyone who is "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions" and (one could add) anyone who rejects others opinions is a bigot. From these posts, you seem to be intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and refuse to understand other's opinions, but rather want to force your's upon them. However, "bigot" is a word and I feel that it, alone, shouldn't define someone for who they are.

About the superior thing, I am not saying you should shut up about the issue. I just wanted to point out in a reasonable manner that you should think about what you're saying when you call other people out for (what you assume to be) thinking they are superior. It can go the other way around is all I'm saying.

My point? Your argument is filled with hypocritical statements. (and I don't mean this as an attack either, I just want to bring things to your awareness -- think about it)

An Observer:

I am not black. (Or African-American or negro or any of that.) I do not define myself as lesbian, either; "queer" is a more accurate term.

visual,

My point? Your argument is filled with hypocritical statements. (and I don't mean this as an attack either, I just want to bring things to your awareness -- think about it)

I do see a hierarchy of relationships based upon nature, religion, and morality.

The question is not "superiority" - don't change the terms, don't put words in my mouth...

I would have to agree with Eric that "At this point you seem to arguing just to argue."

You seem to have this thing that anyone who makes a comment that doesn't agree with you is attacking you.

Anyway:


Heterosexual relationships are superior to homosexual relationships because...

1) God says so.

2) I just feel that way.

3) Homosexuals are ostracized in our society.

4) The survival of the human species is threatened by homosexuality.

As far as I'm concerned, none of these pass muster. A person's individual conception of God does not count as reason. "I just feel that way" also doesn't count. Go ahead and feel that way--but that's pretty much the definition of bigotry.

By you claiming that a person's individual conception of God does not count as reason makes you out to be putting yourself above the person by judging that their moral convictions are wrong. You are acting superior.

"By you claiming that a person's individual conception of God does not count as reason makes you out to be putting yourself above the person by judging that their moral convictions are wrong."

You don't, then, think that moral convictions need to have a sound basis in order to be moral? If someone had a moral conviction that, say, killing you would deliver them into Paradise because you are an infidel (and God says so), you would be acting "superior" in disputing this?

Again, Brian, your pure underlying dishonesty and presumption:

I would correct the proposition to read as follows, though: "People who consider gays to be inferior are not necessarily bigots."

I believe this is what you have proposed throughout this thread.

You've made up a quote that was clearly not my intent, and just loaded the result you wanted to get [ie that I am a "rampant homophobe"] into your question.

Perhaps I could be faulted for not making a direct, formal debate statement in the original post, starting with "Resolved:..."

However, this paragraph from my first follow-up comment pretty well summarizes my basic point:

My main point in the post, however, was not to criticize homosexuals, but to criticize people who attack the character of anyone who criticizes homosexuals, which you seem to do. Perhaps you can raise counterexamples, but it sure looks like anyone who makes any criticism of homosexual practices or homosexual organizations is just asking to have you label them as a bigot- no better than evil old Strom Thurmond or George Wallace.

Your entire series of follow-ups on this thread only proves my basic point again and again. You have no interest in considering the possible merits of concerns about gay Scoutmasters, or any other particular issue. Your interest has been purely in arguing that I'm a raving "bigot" for even suggesting that there may be some people with some issues with homosexuals or organized homosexual groups who have legitimate concerns. Presto, I'm a bigot. Therefore, no consideration need be given to any thoughts I may have.

Anyone with religious objections to homosexuality? Bigot. Anyone opposed to any possible "anti-discrimination" law you can conjure up? Bigot. Anyone opposed to new layers of hate-crime laws? Bigots, I bet.

Liberalism in the modern age has become a religious faith to many people. This seems clearly to be the case with you. There is no talking rationally with you about basically any issue. I might as well be talking tolerance with the Taliban. I'd have about as much chance at reasoning with them.

You don't, then, think that moral convictions need to have a sound basis in order to be moral? If someone had a moral conviction that, say, killing you would deliver them into Paradise because you are an infidel (and God says so), you would be acting "superior" in disputing this?

To the extreme yes, you are presuming to judge others, putting yourself higher than them.

Regardless, my entire point is not to argue over superiority or bigotry. I am trying to say that things are not black and white, there are grey areas in between. The matter of making judgment of what is right or wrong has grey areas too. It is okay to believe in whether if something is right or wrong, but not acknowledging the grey areas in between is not okay.

Anyway, of course no matter what I say, it can be refuted. I understand that. I can also see that I went around this all wrong because I became defensive. I can also see that Brian became defensive despite me saying I wasn't attacking him, but that was partially my fault in the way I stated things (excessive use of "you" for instance). All I wanted to do was have Brian take a step back, breathe, and analyze his point of view and open his mind a little. Simple as that.

Al,

Your interest has been purely in arguing that I'm a raving "bigot" for even suggesting that there may be some people with some issues with homosexuals or organized homosexual groups who have legitimate concerns.