"Those who hold anti-gay prejudices" in their equation by all appearances includes absolutely everyone who has any moral or social or practical objections to considering even foolish promiscuous homosexual bathhouse behavior to be just as preferable and good and desirable as monogamous marital behavior.
IN RESPONSE TO "BIGOTRY THEN AND NOW":…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Eric Olsen
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.
27 - Brian Flemming
mike,
Metallica rocks. Fairy.
Eric,
Your questions...
As reason, no.
As reason, no.
As something threatened by our society's neutral acceptance of gayness, no. (Are you serious?)
God, yes. Tell me how this would pan out. Society decides to treat homosexuality as just a fact of life, no better or worse than any other sexuality, no disapproval of any kind, and then...what? Everyone turns gay and the population of the globe declines into nothing?
Okay. But how is that relevant to this discussion, unless those reasons are sound? Do you agree with those reasons?
These words came from your mouth, er, fingers:
How does one have a "hierarchy" of relationships without one kind of relationship being higher than another?
Clearly the answer is yes. However, a social norm that establishes disapproval of a certain group is based on bigotry if it does not truly have a logical reason for being. Racism was once the norm. That didn't make it right.
I don't know what you're saying here. But if what you're saying is that while it might be fine for society to do away with legal penalties for gays and lesbians it's still okay to maintain other kinds of penalties, I disagree. It IS all or nothing. Either one feels gays are equal and treats them that way or one doesn't.
If one doesn't, and one has no rational basis for this attitude and treatment, one is a bigot. A perfectly legal, express-it-all-one-wants bigot, but a bigot nonetheless.
Natalie,
I really do admire your patience with Al. When I first started posting to Blogcritics, I was convinced Al Barger was a created character like Ed Anger. I thought maybe Eric or someone else played the Al Barger character to liven things up in the comments, and I thought it was a pretty good creation--a caricature of an imbalanced, superior, patronizing conservative who treated everyone else in the world as if they were children he needed to correct and called everyone who disagreed with him a communist.
I wrote Eric and he told me that, no, Al was very real, and I'm almost convinced of it now. However, I have noticed he serves the same purpose as a caricature--a foil who can be used to demonstrate the emptiness of a certain point of view.
Discussions with Al, if you can stick with them, almost always follow this pattern:
1. Al takes issue with a statement you have made, claiming such an assertion is outrageous.
2. You demonstrate the validity of your point of view with evidence and argument.
3. Al erupts into a volcano of ad hominem attacks and invective, largely ignoring your arguments and instead projecting his worst fears about communists on you.
4. Repeat two and three, per your taste.
5. The thread is abandoned, leaving a permanent record of evidence and argument on one side of the issue and incoherent screaming on the other.
Not as good as an actual discussion, but then Al tends to choose indefensible propositions such as, "People who consider gays to be inferior are not in fact bigots," so there really isn't much of a reasonable argument to be had on the other side anyway.
The only quibble I have with the Al Barger caricature is that it's always, always communists. If I were writing the character I'd put in a little variety here and there. Space aliens maybe, or Rosicrucians, whatever they are.
I think this is one of the more interesting bounce-reasoned-arguments-off-the-clown-and-watch-him-sputter games in recent memory, though. I had fun. Hope you did too.
And the important thing is, we all learned something. Oh, wait, we didn't. Well, the important thing is we all had fun. See ya in the next installment of "That's My Al."
28 - Joe
I thought you missed Eric's first question but I see it was the unwritten premise of your last post.
29 - Al Barger
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."
30 - Brian Flemming
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.
31 - visualsimplicity
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.
32 - visualsimplicity
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.
33 - Eric Olsen
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.
34 - Natalie
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.
35 - Eric Olsen
Thanks Natalie, I appreciate that.
36 - Brian Flemming
visual,
I said a personal moral conviction isn't "reason"--i.e., rational thought. And it isn't. Bigots have ALWAYS used morality as their shield.
By your logic, a person who believes that race-mixing is immoral and should be stigmatized by society cannot be deemed "wrong or incorrect." Hey, it's how they feel!
Yeah, it's how they feel. And a person who feels that race-mixing is morally wrong, that a race-mixed relationship is inferior (on the "hierarchy"), that history has shown that the races pretty much like to stick together so it should stay that way, that while it might be legal society should still find ways to express "disapproval" even if the relationship isn't the race-mixers' "fault"...well, there's a word for that. Even if it is based on personal moral conviction and (ahem) a concern for the future of the human population.
Eric,
You've said the culture shouldn't make these "distinctions" through law. So how should "the culture" make these distinctions? In what specific way (not just "social norm," which is vague) should our culture assert that heterosexual lifestyles are "'better'" than homosexual lifestyles?
You've avoided this question throughout the entire debate, and it is a vital question. My position is that society should be completely neutral in every way--it should not express any disapproval of gay relationships in any way whatsoever.
Your position seems to be that some expressions of disapproval are okay. What are they, specifically?
37 - Eric Olsen
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.
38 - an observer
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.
39 - Brian Flemming
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.
40 - visualsimplicity
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.
41 - Brian Flemming
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?
42 - visualsimplicity
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)
43 - Natalie
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.
44 - Brian Flemming
visual,
Your lack of specific quotes from my argument makes this rather difficult.
Contradictions are generally pretty easy to demonstrate in an argument such as this.
For example, Eric says:
and also says this:
I think there is a contradiction here. It is impossible to have a "hierarchy" without one element of that hierarchy being superior to another. That's what a hierarchy is. (This isn't hypocrisy, though--I make no accusation there.)
Since you've accused me of hypocrisy, how about juxtaposing two or more quotes that would demonstrate it, or at least a contradiction? If you do, I will address that alleged contradiction/hypocrisy.
Otherwise, I have only your accusation sitting there, with no real support. That's not "point[ing] out flaws," as you say you are doing, so much as laying out a blanket accusation. I can't really do anything substantive with it. But if you quote directly from what I've said here, I'll have an idea of why you think I am being hypocritcal.
45 - visualsimplicity
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.
46 - Doctor Slack
"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?
47 - Al Barger
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.
48 - visualsimplicity
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.
49 - Brian Flemming
Al,
I have not called you a bigot, raving or otherwise. I have stated that I think someone who places another group in an inferior place on a hierarchy without a sound rational basis for that placement is, by definition, a bigot. There hasn't been any substantive disagreement with this premise.
The question, still open, is whether there is a sound rational basis to place homosexuality in an inferior place on any hierarchy recognized by society at large.
So far, no sound rational basis has been presented to justify this placement.
If there are "some people with some issues with homosexuals or organized homosexual groups who have legitimate concerns," I have yet to hear any concerns that are legitimate voiced in this thread (except your red-herring bathhouse example, upon which we all seem to agree, and which nobody has suggested justifies placing homosexuality itself in an inferior place on a hierarchy).
The only "issue" I have focussed on is the proposal that society at large should support the placement of homosexuality in an inferior place on a hierarchy and establish "discouragement" of homosexuality as a social norm. Not a single non-absurd reason for this proposal has been offered.
50 - Eric Olsen
"not based upon deductive reason" is not the same as "absurd"
there are underlying biological imperatives that underlie general cultural attitudes toward homosexuality, I believe most of these (other than the longterm survival of the species) can be swept away with an emphasis on longterm monogomous relationships
pedophiles are pedophiles and should be dealt with severely regardless of orientation
again - there is no need to "do" anything more about society's expression of less-than-total approval of homosexuality, it is already expressed in a million ways and is not going to go away any time soon
51 - Doctor Slack
To Eric:"(other than the longterm survival of the species)"
I think it's correct to conjecture that hostility to homosexuality arises at least partially from a visceral fear of being somehow contaminated by (or converted to) a different sexual orientation. That fear is sub-rational -- as you say, it isn't based on deductive reasoning -- but that's not necessarily a reason to assume it's biologically inevitable or somehow justified from the standpoint of evolution. (That proceeds from the mistaken assumption that sex is a solely reproductive act, which it isn't -- particularly for primates. "Queerness" has certainly never seemed to inhibit the human capacity to multiply.)
Almost everyone on this thread appears to agree that the existence of an irrational prejudice is not an excuse for legislating in favor of that prejudice. Where disagreement seems to lie is re: informal behaviour, whether homosexuality is something that should be "discouraged" or heterosexuality should be "encouraged." I think, personally, that an attitude that regards either form of sexuality as something to be either favoured or suppressed -- however mildly -- is simply missing the point. I think it's worthwhile and necessary to point that out, and that this is likely to be a far healthier approach than gently "encouraging" people one way or the other.
To visual: "I am trying to say that things are not black and white, there are grey areas in between. "
Fine as far as it goes, but there's something you should be aware of. Next to ad hominem attacks, meta-debate (arguing about how someone is arguing) is one of the biggest signs that someone has nothing helpful to say about the actual topic. It sets off alarm bells, particularly in internet debate, because it's so commonly used as a diversionary tactic by posters who, after having extensively and intransigently flamed their opponents, don't want to admit they can neither support their argument nor refute their opponent's line of argument. (Hence, it's often leveled at Brian in political threads on Blogcritics.)
It's a version of psychoanalyzing your opponent instead of engaging with them ("Well, I can't say anything about your argument itself, but I can say you're being really irrational!") -- and people will often, and often justifiably, react to it with contempt. If you really have, or think you have, a better handle on the "grey areas" of the debate than Brian or any other poster here, you're better off making a substantive argument about the topic that reflects this rather than just lecturing to people.
52 - Joe
Doc-
Did you just responde to meta-debate with meta-debate? By pointing it out, am I responding to your response with meta-debate?
Well, as long as I'm not just lecturing people...
53 - Brian Flemming
Eric,
True. I overstated. Dr. Slack's "sub-rational" is a better descriptive term for the four main arguments offered so far in favor of a societal bias against homosexuality.
Evolutionary psychology also provides strong evidence that racism (a bias towards one's own race, a fear of those of another) has a biological basis as well--meaning early tribes of humans found it useful to survival.
But this in no way serves as a justification for racism, only one explanation for it.
Let me offer an alternate version of this thought:
To be clear, I am not in any way accusing you of racism. However, logically, what is the difference between supporting racism because society "already expresses" it and supporting an anti-gay bias because society already expresses it?
The question here is not, "Should we do more to reinforce the lower place society puts homosexuality?" That's like asking, "Should we have more racism?" The question is, "Should we recitfy society's lower placement of homosexuality?"
Please correct me if I do not represent your position accurately, but to answer, "No, we shouldn't, because that placement has a basis in evolutionary psychology/biology" is a somewhat familiar argument, and it isn't sound.
Dr. Slack,
Thanks.
54 - Eric Olsen
I, unlike you, do not equate attitudes toward homosexuality with attitudes toward race. I believe it is in society's interest to be "totally neutral" regarding race, I believe it is in society's interest to be legally neutral regarding homosexuality but to maintain a general preference for monogomous heterosexuality - it already has this, no need to do anything to further encourage monogomous heterosexuality. We still need to do more to discourage unequal legal treatment and to discourage discrimination against individuals.
55 - Brian Flemming
Eric,
I still feel you haven't offered a single benefit society would gain from this general preference.
The drawbacks are in evidence all over this thread. Any "preference" for one lifestyle means the others are, inescapably, regarded as "second-class." That this attitude inflicts psychological damage is inarguable.
So any benefits a pro-het attitude would offer society must be great enough to overcome this inevitable second-class-citizen side effect. The benefits must be substantial. Not to mention articulable.
As far as I'm concerned, this is enough to kill the proposal. However, I'm willing to continue filling in the chart, with a little help.
56 - Doctor Slack
Brian, if I'm understanding him correctly, what I think Eric is now arguing is not that society should go out of its way to express or encourage a preference for one over the other, but that he believes societies will naturally gravitate towards heterosexuality and monogamy.
While I'd have my reservations about that, I'd certainly agree with a slightly altered form of it: a statement that no amount of tolerance for same-sex relationships is ever likely to deter heterosexual breeding or even displace it from a relatively dominant social niche (unless we all suddenly switch to reproduction by cloning, or something).
57 - Doctor Slack
Eric, I should point out that as your comments stand -- unless I'm missing something, which is possible -- they also imply that you endorse the current level of informal, non-legalized hostility to and prejudice toward homosexuals. That may not be your intention.
Also, you take issue with equating attitudes toward race with attitudes toward sexual orientation, but you don't say why. Brian has spelled out why he thinks they are equivalent (his reference to race and evolutionary psychology, above) -- is there something specific you take issue with in this? Why the biological bases of homophobia, IOW, should be more compelling than the biological bases of tribalism (and racism, basically a variant thereof)?
58 - Brian Flemming
Dr.,
If the proposal is,
...then I am in 100% agreement.
My suspicion is that Eric wouldn't claim 100% agreement with that proposal, but I might be wrong.
59 - Eric Olsen
Legally and as individuals I'm fine with that statement.
Morally I would like to see society view - and it does - monogomous heterosexuality as the ideal expression of a sexual relationship.
The biological difference between sexuality and race is that interbreeding of races has no detrimental impact on the perpetuation of the species, it may actually improve the species as the deleterious effects of inbreeding will be countered. Homosexual relationships don't produce offspring at all - I'd say that's a huge biological difference and the underlying reason why race are sexual preference aren't analagous, though they have many parallels in the arena of civil rights.
What are the concrete ramifications? X% of the population is hetero, X% is gay. Neither of these groups will be directly affected by a set of laws that is neutral toward preference, including marriage and inheritance, and a societal norm that individuals should not be penalized for their preference.
But it will affect, and be directed at, the group of those who are not "hardwired" either way, who should not be encouraged by society to "experiment" if they can be happy as heteros. The decision - for all anyone may wish it - is simply not neutral in the real world. This will make their lives easier, allow them to fulfill their fundamental deep-seated biological imperative to reproduce and nurture children - which hasn't even been acknowledged here - and meet the moral and religious norms of almost all mankind.
That which is "natural" is best unless it clearly isn't "natural" to you, in which case you should be accepted as you are.
60 - Natalie
So how do you explain people who have no interest in sleeping with members of the opposite sex yet have that same deep nurturing to parent? There are millions of queers who manage to conceive (or adopt) and raise kids who are every bit as are beneficial to society as those raised by other parental configurations. That whole "give the hets preference because they reproduce" is, IMO, bollocks, and worse.
IMO, the ones who want to recruit people to heterosexuality or any other orientation -- for any reason -- are advocating a dangerous position. I am getting chills just thinking about it.
61 - Steve Barger
I hate homophobia-but love the homophobe.
Do I have the civil right to privately, on my own property, practice racial discrimination or discrimination against homosexuals? Can I justifiably refuse to rent my house to a black or gay (or Jewish or Muslim) person?
Whose rights are actually being violated, by such private discrimination?
It is my concern that talk about the equality of rights for gays and lesbians blurs the distinction between government-sponsored action, and private action.
Thus: Why can't the Boy Scouts of America, a private group, choose to discriminate against gays?
Let's hate homophobia, but love the homophobe.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I will venture to say, is an example that gay rights supporters should emulate: He didn't refer to the United States as "AmeriKKKa".
You felt uplifted by Dr. King. He appealed to our better natures. Yet he is the major figure that is responsible for the virtual end of racism in America, today! (Excepting, of course, private, non-governmental discrimination, which is the natural right of any bigot, in a Libertarian society).
Let the gay rights movement in America offer us an inspiring leader like Dr. King, to appeal to our better natures-never for once allowing us to forget that the principle of equality of rights under the Law most emphatically applies to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals; while at the same time, hating the homophobia, but loving the homophobe.
Steven Barger
62 - Doctor Slack
I agree with Natalie that "recruitment" to various forms of sexuality is a very, very Bad Idea. But in fairness to Eric, he is now clear that he's not proposing and wouldn't propose any such thing. (At least, he agrees with Brian's statement, which seems to me to preclude any such thing.)
So just to chew over Eric's comment about reproduction... though I can understand how this point seems intuitively reasonable to many people, I also agree w/ Natalie on this one. The only way same sex relationships could stand a chance of genuinely interfering with reproduction is if it were possible not only for such relationships to become a social norm, but also to eliminate the parental instincts of same sex couples. I see both conjectures as being so highly improbable that they can be safely dismissed.
If I'm understanding rightly, Natalie's point -- and it's an important one -- is that queerness is natural, every bit as much as heterosexuality. That's because sex is not a purely reproductive behaviour in primates, and we're primates. To say this is not to advocate that either hetero- or homo-sexuality be championed as a single "natural" standard, but simply to recognize that there's no necessary conflict between them.
63 - visualsimplicity
Doc,
If I'm guilty of some of the things you mentioned, I'm sorry, I hadn't realized.
But I did say something about Brian's argument and I wasn't just calling him irrational. I made the point of the hypocritical statements he was making in hopes to enlighten him on what Eric was trying to say. I wasn't trying to harp on anyone's style of argument, I was simply trying to open up people's minds.
Regardless, to further Eric's statements, I believe the biological argument is not so much about diminishing population but rather about, yes, reproduction and the matter that the human body is designed for heterosexuality (penetration, body fluids, reproduction). It is what is "natural" and what is "natural" is the norm. Also, the psychology of humans has always been geered towards the survival of the species (attractive=large hips=good child-bearing=survival of the species). Yes I realized I used a sexual thing to point out the psychology, but even "queers" recognize an underlying attractiveness to any gender and that general attractiveness is based upon the underlying belief in the survival of the species.
Ah but then isn't the survival of the species also dependent on health? And isn't the maintenance of happiness important to one's health? "Queers" wouldn't be happy being forced to live heterosexual lives. And thus based on survival of the species belief, they should seek what makes them happy.
In the end it is not so much that the human population will die off because of homosexuality. It is the belief in what is designed by nature (what is "natural") and what isn't ("unnatural"). People have a tendency to fear and not understand the "unnatural." I am not giving excuses for persecution of homosexuality (I fully support homosexuality), but I can understand the feelings of certain individuals who are against homosexuality (of course I don't agree with people who are so extreme as to gay-bash or anything that like).
It is the matter that some people are so blindly self-righteous that they can't understand others' points of views that scares me. In other words, just like people who are against homosexuality should put themselves in the shoes of a homosexual, the other way around works too.
64 - Eric Olsen
No problem with gay parenting, it goes with encouraging monogomy and family values. Adoption is fine - get those kids into families. However, we must also acknowledge the "have your cake and eat it too" element of this since there had to have been some kind of heterosexual biology somewhere along the line to have the kids in the first place.
65 - Natalie
"Having your cake and eating it too"?
Would that be the case, as well, for infertile heterosexuals who use alternative-insemination methods? If they can not biologically reproduce -- low sperm count, narrow fallopian tubes, whatever -- isn't nature telling them, too, to do without parenthood? If a couple undergoes in vitro fertilization or locates a surrogate or egg or sperm donor, and they have a fulfilling sex life that is in line with their sexual orientation, aren't they having their cake and eating it too, as well?
And while we are at it, should society encourage childless, legally married hets to have children and fulfill their apparent duty to society?
I would imagine not. And if what I imagine is correct, it would then follow that you are saying that gays -- and gays alone -- are not meant to have children. Would that be correct? I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth.
66 - Eric Olsen
Nat my pet, that was a (very) small joke merely meant to point out the irony of the situation, which is indeed, IRONIC.
No one has a social duty to reproduce - I didn't say that don't think it. I said it is a deeply embedded instinct, and satifying deeply embedded instincts, of which parenting is one of the most deeply embedded is ... satisfying, as you have noted.
No one needs to be either encouraged or discouraged from breeding. I speak only in broadest generalities - social ideals. I have zero problems with your orientation being right for you, with you parenting, this is all the swellest.
All I have said is that society at the broadest level is allowed to express an ideal for sexual relationships. Lots of things that ARE RIGHT for individuals would not be ideal if extrapolated over all of society. If everyone was hetero mankind would suffer no ill effects evolutionarily - if everyone was gay mankind would disappear in one generation. This cannot be ignored and is not trivial. I see no way around having this reality hanging loosely over mankind, pushing it IN A GENERAL SENSE toward heterosexuality. No one has to give up rights, self-respect or anything else I can think of to acknowledge this reality.
67 - Doctor Slack
To visual:
"I can understand the feelings of certain individuals who are against homosexuality (of course I don't agree with people who are so extreme as to gay-bash or anything that like)."
Understanding intolerance is one thing, condoning it (in any form) is something else. I think it crucial to understand intolerance of any kind and its sources, and just as crucial to actively oppose it.
See, it's easy to make seemingly neutral statements like the above when you're part of the dominant group (vis a vis whatever the subject is) -- that's part of the fun of being in any kind of socially dominant group. But those things don't sound neutral to people in the non-dominant group: they sound like a tacit acceptance of bigotry as long as it doesn't get too extreme. And there's a reason for this.
Members of non-dominant groups of any kind know all too well -- often from personal experience, often from shared lore -- that those who tacitly condone any form of a prejudice are historically unlikely to take any significant risk to oppose the more extreme forms of that prejudice. As the dark history of eugenics has demonstrated, this can have supremely nasty consequences.
A little mental exercise -- try replacing the words "homosexuality" and "gay bash" in your above sentence with the words "Negroes" and "lynch" (or "Jews" and "exterminate") and see if you feel the same way about it.
To Eric:
I'll steer clear of cakes and the eating thereof, and simply deal with one element of your argument I forgot to address above. Several times, you've proposed a kind of archetypal child suspended between poles of heterosexuality and homosexuality, with a choice between the two.
I think that's fallacious, and here's why. Sexual identity -- of whatever flavour -- appears, at least from everything I've read on the subject, to be very deeply hardwired. This is true of people whose preferences are isosexual (whether hetero- or homo-), and true of bisexuals as well. In all epochs, I think history has shown pretty conclusively that people will go to enormous lengths and subject themselves to significant suffering in order to follow their preferred orientation. I can think of no human society in which this has not been true.
If I'm correct, the choice is not between encouraging individuals who might go either way to follow the more socially acceptable path. There are no tabula rasa children -- no neutral, choose-your-own-adventure sexual identities. The choice is rather between
1) encouraging people whose chosen sexual identity might be frowned upon to "go along to get along," on the theory that the psychological cost to them will be offset by an easier path through society, or
2) learning about and supporting the individual identity of the child in question, on the theory that their identification with and support from you will help offset the difficulties they will face in society as a whole.
I understand the temptations of 1), but I think the evidence points to 2) being the healthier strategy almost every time. A child with genuinely supportive parents can often grow up into a healthy and successful individual despite the worst bigotry a society can throw at them. Conversely, a child who's convinced their parents view the most fundamental part of their selves as somehow "unnatural," fundamentally flawed or socially nonviable faces far steeper odds, no matter how permissive society at large may or may not be.
68 - dolmance31
There is a disturbing aspect to the Supreme court's decision. Legislation from the bench is possibly the most odious form of tyranny yet practiced by6 our lawless government. I am all for the homos, and i am further an AVID, nay RABID practitioner of every conceivable form of sodomistic pleasures. i burn my incense exclusively on the altar to Sodom. I also am in favor of Homos since that leaves more females for me to sodomize!
Obviously the anti-sodomy laws are preposterous and intrusive. The way to abolish the laws is by use of the legislative branch though. No reasonable person can say otherwise. The implications surrounding this latest high court decision are forboding at best. Again, we see the federal government encroaching on and obliterating State's rights. this sets up a horrifying precedent! Perhaps the next Supreme court deciision will be to decide for the states that the first ammendment is not applicable any longer. I do believe in, embrace, and worship all aspects of buggery, fellatio, bestiality, necrophelia, cunnilingus, snow balling, water sports, electro sex, daisy chains, masochism, sadism, coprophagia, pederasty, and every other niggling facet of the dusky gem known as Sodomy. I am also not a bigot. I do, however, insist that such immoral laws be repealed by the legislative branch though, and not over-ridden by the hubristic robed minions of the High Court.
69 - Natalie
Dolmance31: I would actually agree with you on a procedural level. A legislative change would have been preferable. However, when we are talking about something so vile as denying equal rights to any human -- which is what this country has practiced against people born here who have never, ever been equal under law -- it seems to me as if this is nitpicking over how a meeting is run under Robert's Rules of Order. America is a wee bit closer to what it claims to be, thanks to the SCOTUS sodomy ruling. No one had to be killed in order to make it happen, so, I'm in. Because every day that passes without equality for all is unforgivable. And frankly, I care more about people than procedure.
Doesn't mean I don't see your point, which does have merit.
70 - Brian Flemming
First, I think everyone has gotten away from the point of this thread, which is titled "Homos, Brian Flemming and me." People have largely stopped talking about me, Brian Flemming, so you are all, prima facie, off topic.
I can't wait for the day when someone does a Google search on "Brian Flemming" and "Homos, Brian Flemming and me" pops up as a search result. This has always been my dream. "Brian Flemming poopies his Pampers" will be the next result, I hope. (Those who despise Brian: Linking to these pages from your own website makes this result more likely.)
Seems the debate is down to this: Homos are okay. Hets are okay. But those young folks in the middle--we need to look out for them.
Not a bad idea. But counselling, say, an 18-year-old who believes he might be gay to do a soul-search and see if he couldn't bring himself to be straight is flat-out cruel. It's cruel to the kid, it's cruel to the female partners he will have who will always wonder what is wrong with them, because something will always be missing in this guy's relationships. It's cruel to the kids who will not have a live-in father when this guy finally can't take the denial anymore and "comes out" at 45 years old, leaving his wife to pursue who he really is. This shit happens, and it usually happens because the gay guy feared being a gay guy--because of pressure from family or society.
Such a tendency in society--to keep a taboo against gayness because, um, there's a taboo against gayness so being gay is hard--would be justified if there were many people who could truly be happy either way. But, as Slack points out, this is fallacious. Someone here might know one or two of these folks, but by and large society's (and families') disapproval of gays results in shame and pain, not happiness. There's no way to gently hint to a gay kid that you don't approve of who he is--ANY disapproval is painful. The only thing to do is to say, "Gay, straight, neither is better than the other--be who you are, and we will love you." Oh--and to follow through on that, too.
71 - Natalie
Yes!
72 - Eric Olsen
Brian, a) the first two paragraphs were real funny b) the rest made sense, and on an individual level I will agree with what you said, and c) no one I know hates you, you're just a pain sometimes.
We disagree only on this as far as I can tell: society can offer levels of general approval without taking it out on individuals. I say of course it can. It does this in all kinds of arenas, including farting as you mentioned a few weeks ago in this very thread.
73 - Natalie
Hugs to everyone. Each of us is a pain sometimes. :)
74 - visualsimplicity
Doc,
There's no difference between extreme bigotry and bigotry. Bigotry is bigotry. Here's the thing though, there is bigotry for a noble cause and bigotry for an un-noble cause. Both are bad. If one is intolerant of people (as a group) who take a neutral stand to something, then one is a bigot. Yes, extremists are the people that get things done, they can also be the ones to get things undone. However, if everyone held a neutral attitude, nothing would need to be done. But then wouldn't life be boring then? It probably would be.
Anyway, I believe you misinterpreted my disagreement to gay-bashing (or maybe I'm misinterpreting your response). What I meant was that I wouldn't stand for the physical harming of another human being. So I don't quite see the point of your mental exercise.
By the way, about the homosexuality and heterosexuality being hardwired. I believe (I don't know the source exactly) that there has been no evidence that sexual preferences are based upon a genetic code (and I believe that 90%+ [from last I heard] of the genetic map of humans has been decoded). Thus, it would seem to me that sexual preference is some how developed from social interaction.
75 - Doctor Slack
Sorry, I lost the original version of this post with most of its hyperlinks, and I'm too tired to redo it all at this point.
"I believe (I don't know the source exactly) that there has been no evidence that sexual preferences are based upon a genetic code"
Dean Hamer's famous paper of 1993 is the centrepiece of the "gay gene" debate. It's still in play AFAIK.
Chandler Burr points out that orientation is a "black box" trait manifesting biologically in any number of ways, but not clearly attributable to any single factor.
The "EBE" theory, proposed by a gent at Cornell whose name escapes me for the mome, tries to rescue a social argument for sexual orientation but concedes that what's really at issue is a highly complex interaction between social and biological factors. This is close to the position currently held by the APA.
All of it is bad news for the Seventh Day Adventists, "ex-gay ministries" and pseudoscience like "reparative therapy." No-one pretends that sexual orientation is entirely explained at this point, but virtually no-one working in the field that I'm aware of seriously contends that biology isn't a major factor, and most give it a dominant role.