I was going to write a post about the Alabama legislator proposing a law cutting public funding for any books that “promote homosexuality”, which would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters, and public school textbooks couldn’t present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn’t offer books with gay or bisexual characters… but Neil Gaiman has already done the work. Go.
• 
Just to interject, but who would you say made the “first move” in enslaving africans?
The measures to prevent homosexuals from gaining marraige rights is simply a form of discrimination. Color all you want as “just trying to defend what our traditions are,” it’s still discrimination. And I’m sure the south, when asked why slaves should be continued to be denied the same rights as free men, would have answered “because our free/slave tradition says so.”
And unless civil unions are granted the exact same bundle of rights that come with marraige, it’s still going to be discrimination. The simpler solution would be to make marriage the sole perogative of religion, and only allow governments to issue “Civil Union Licenses.”
The conservative movement against homosexuality is just a reaction, they did not make the first move.
Gee, and I thought conservatives didn’t hate gays.
My bad. 🙂
Seriously, is that you’re whole argument? “We’re against homosexuality because they started it.”?
Aw, gee, Bill. Did you think insulting me was a counter argument?
Too bad. Ken has already proven my point.
Kingbobb says:
“The simpler solution would be to make marriage the sole prerogative of religion, and only allow governments to issue “Civil Union Licenses.”
That’s a…GREAT idea. Me, I say just let anyone get married but since I’m in the minority (and, if Den is correct, I’m probably secretly AGAINST the idea anyway!) that might make people happy.
Den says:
“Aw, gee, Bill. Did you think insulting me was a counter argument?
Too bad. Ken has already proven my point.”
Uh…what point is that? If it’s that conservatives hate gays, yeah, I guess in your world it is now an iron tight case. Because if Ken hates them (and we will just have to trust in your eerie powers of mind reading to trust that this is indeed the case) well, then I guess all conservatives do.
Sorry about that, it was “Den.” I apologize for the wrong attribution.
Jim in Iowa
That’s OK. It made me laugh, especially after reading this:
What the hëll are you people reading?!!!!
EClark, I was wondering the same thing.
Jim in Iowa
Phinn
Kingbob does bring up a good point. Slaveowners used the Bible to defend Slavery. Hmmm. Isn’t that similiar to how some conservatives are using it to attack homosexuals?
I’m still waiting for some kind of counter-example showing me how conservatives don’t hate gays.
Here’s a hint: Calling me “weak-minded” isn’t it.
Too bad. Ken has already proven my point.
Only if you take what I wrote out of context, as you did.
I was responding to:
And why pick on homosexuality? Why not murder? Waging war? Lying? Stealing?
And my answer was to point out the ludicrousness of saying that homosexuality was being picked on as opposed to the others.
Gee, and I thought conservatives didn’t hate gays.
I don’t how you get that from what I wrote. Being against an act is not the same thing as being against a person. It is like those who say that they support the troops, but not the war.
I’m still waiting for some kind of counter-example showing me how conservatives don’t hate gays.
Yet, except for your clearly biased opinion you have no real examples of conservatives hating homosexuals.
“I’m still waiting for some kind of counter-example showing me how conservatives don’t hate gays.”
Me.
Well Bill, I think that one word reply is the first thing you’ve said to me that wasn’t a personal insult. Congratulations!
As for Ken, I’ve named a number of conservatives who hate gays and all I’ve heard in reply is, “they’re not really conservatives.”
Gee, and I thought Bush kept saying he was a “compassionate conservative.” My TV must have been on the fritz or something.
Keep trying, guys. If nothing else, you’re giving me an endless source of amusement.
Again, I must have missed something, when did Bush say specifically that he “hates” homosexuals?
Again being against an act, does not equal hating a person!
J. Alexander wrote: Kingbob does bring up a good point. Slaveowners used the Bible to defend Slavery. Hmmm. Isn’t that similiar to how some conservatives are using it to attack homosexuals?
Similar only on the surface. You do not find a single command of the Bible requiring there to be slaves. The Bible regulated what was a common practice of the time. In addition, slavery then was different than the slavery of 19th century America in that it was not racially motivated. It was more like serfdom in Russia. Not saying it was good, but it is a mistake to confuse the two situations.
You can find Christians for the last 2000 years who opposed slavery. In fact, Christians were at the forefront of getting slavery abolished in England, and were very active against slavery here in America. You find more prominent “enlightenment” thinkers defending slavery than you do leading Christians in the 1800’s. My point: While the Bible has been used (wrongly) to justify slavery, it has not been a major belief of Christianity. On the contrary, there has been a strong movement to abolish slavery.
When it comes to homosexuality, there is an overwhelmingly unanimous voice for almost 2000 years agreeing that the Bible condmens it. So the analogy does not hold up.
Tim wrote: You’re still not answering my basic question, Jim. Adultery has directly threatened more marriages than any gay marriage ever has. Adultery has directly changed more children’s lives than any gay marriage ever has.
I did answer the question, you just dismissed it as an abstraction. I have stated repeatedly on this thread and others that the same Christian leaders who strongly oppose homosexuality also oppose adultery (James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, James Kennedy, to name a few). When you compare how the respective parties treated the leaders who committed adultery, the difference is enormous. Bill Clinton is still at the forefront. As a whole, Democrats don’t care about his adultery. Compare that to Newt Gingrich. While he still is a commentator on a few shows, he has lost an enormous amount of credibility with conservatives in the Republican Party.
Bottom line, I agree that adultery is a problem. The focus on gay marriage is because it is making into law something that will undermine the value of marriage. While adultery may still occur, it is by no means being put into law.
True … but if you’ll forgive me for asking, so what? Copernicus’s and Galileo’s observations caused a huge change in how we understood the nature of the universe: it had always involved the Earth at the center of the universe.
Change happens. Simply saying “but it’s a CHANGE!” is a value-neutral term, not an innate cause for concern.
You are comparing apples and oranges. The earth being, or not being, the center of the universe is an objective truth. Homosexuality is an action. It is an action with moral implications (one way or the other). Your comparison is invalid.
There has been, without doubt, a change in moral values. Sexual values is a great example. Go back 50 years, it was not acceptable to “live together” before marriage. It may have been done, but it was not considered moral. Today it is. You may think that this is ok. I think it has hurt our society as much as adultery has done. Studies have consistently shown that the divorce rate of couples who lived together before marriage is higher than that of couples who get married then live together. I think divorce is, by far, a greater threat than adultery to marriage. Whether you agree with me or not, it is clear that this shift in moral values has had an impact on our society. I am convinced that gay marriage will only further this trend and this problem.
Change is not always bad, but is also not always good. In this circumstance, allowing gay marriage will cause a fundamental change in our society. The only question is whether that is a good or bad thing, not whether it will have an impact.
Jim in Iowa
Well that’s what we’re here for, spreading our special brand of joy.
For a guy who throws around “deal with it” with such abandon, you get upset pretty easily. I apologize for the insult, though I would point out that I did not, in fact, explicitly call you weak-minded. But the implication was there and for that I’m sorry. I think a lot of your arguments have been pretty poor here but for all I know you are secretly one of the Supreme Court Justices having an off day.
The fact is, conservative gays are welcome among many conservatives and will find themselves vilified in the most vulger way by some (SOME) liberals. As for myself, for all the political stuff I follow in the news and on the web, it is absolutely no factor in the people I consider my friends (And luckily for me the same is true for them, otherwise I doubt that Tom, Frank, Mimi, Joe, My Mom, My ex-wife, my ex-wife’s husband and my youngest child, among many others, would ever speak to me again!).
I guess I can understand that others may find it impossible to be friends with people of different political beliefs, just as I can understnd that many decent people are very particular in the race or religion of people they would date or marry, but I’m glad I never felt that way. I would have denied myself the love and friendship of some of the greatest people I have ever known.
And one benefit of these relationships has been to forever deny me the comfort of believing in the cartoon cliches of what “liberals” or “conservatives” are like.
I’m still waiting for some kind of counter-example showing me how conservatives don’t hate gays.
Do you also want me to prove that I have quit beating my wife? Seriously, you are assuming an answer by the very question. As one person told me earlier, the fact that I believe homosexuality is wrong/bad/harmful means I hate gays. I consider that a false definition of hate, but that is his or her view.
That being said, there are a number of conservative Christian organizations who provide help and care to gay individuals who have AIDS. You have conservative Christian individuals who defend gays against verbal and physical abuse. The fact that there are also some who do not simply shows that some conservatives (as there are some liberals) who do bad things.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa wrote…
You can find Christians for the last 2000 years who opposed slavery … When it comes to homosexuality, there is an overwhelmingly unanimous voice for almost 2000 years agreeing that the Bible condmens it.
But you can and do find Christians who are not opposed to homosexuality. In fact, the United Church of Canada decided in 2003 to endorse same-sex marriage. So I’m not just talking about individuals, but formal religious institutions as well.
“The conservative movement against homosexuality is just a reaction, they did not make the first move.”
How did gays make the first move? By wanting to be treated as equals? By not wanting to be attacked by those who fear/hate anyone who is different?
The gay rights movement arose from incidents like Stonewall, which were caused by the police (& others in power) constantly attacking the gays until the gays had had enough & fought back.
Or did the gays make the first move by existing?
Take a look at (a) Glenn’s original post at the top of the thread, and (b) EClark’s initial question about things being “taught as proof”. Textbooks are explicitly mentioned in the first, and implied in the second. The media (e.g. Time magazine, which you’re bringing up here) didn’t enter into the initial discussion at all.
Actually, Tim I didn’t imply anything of the sort. I never said or implied that anyone WAS actually teaching “homosexuality as a genetic trait” AS fact, just that BEFORE we do, we should be able to establish it AS fact. If someone wants to teach it as a theory, I have no qualms with that.
But you can and do find Christians who are not opposed to homosexuality. In fact, the United Church of Canada decided in 2003 to endorse same-sex marriage. So I’m not just talking about individuals, but formal religious institutions as well.
You only find Christians not opposed to homosexuality in the last 50 years. My point was quite clear. There is a virtually unbroken record of Christianity believing that the Bible taught homosexuality is wrong. That record is at least 1800 years long. You do not find the same for slavery. There are writings by Christians within a few centuries of Christ that called for the aboloition of slavery. My point stands: The church, UNTIL the last 50 years, has been quite clear and consistent in saying homosexuality is wrong. Slavery has been questioned BASED ON THE BIBLE for over 1800 plus years.
Jim in Iowa
I don`t have the time to read this whole discussion but I have read and heard so many variations of it that I am aware of the arguments anyway.
What has been written in the Bible has not been written by God but by people. On top of that, a lot of it is open to interpretation and some of what is written in it should definitely not be taken literally.
The Bible should NEVER be a substitute for your own conscience and I have very little patience with Bible thumpers.
Talking about sins: I define a sin as an action that harms at best only the sinner and at worst also others. Who is harmed by homosexuality? It is consensual sex between adults of the same sex. I understand that for many people there is the “ick” factor involved but what moral right do these people have to deny them to live their lives and be happy the way they want to be?
And about the discussion if homosexuality is genetic or not: Who cares? These people are not sick, they don`t need to be cured.
This is only another example why at least in Western Europe, less and less people are interested to go to church. Like me, they have their beliefs but refuse to be part of a church that discriminates against women and homosexuals (I have other reasons as well).
There are some good examples of homosexuality in more recent Star Trek books. I don`t know about other SF but I certainly welcome it that homosexuality is slowly becoming more acceptable in books.
I would be careful with the word “promoting”. We even have the law here in Britain that forbids “promotion” of homosexuality in schools. What they mean is that homosexuality is something forbidden, something people should not talk about, something that is dirty and hearing about it might put “wrong” idea into children`s heads. What it means, people should be ignorant about it. Instead of “promotion”, something that sounds like it is a life style made by choice, it should be “promoting understanding and informing about homosexuality”.
Kingbobb:
The simpler solution would be to make marriage the sole perogative of religion, and only allow governments to issue “Civil Union Licenses.”
Count this married man in. Every time this subject has come up, I’ve always said that we need to separate the legal/civil definition of marriage from the religious one.
If we did that, then I think most of the objections to gay marriage on religious grounds would fade away, and those still opposed would have to defend a more up-front form of bigotry.
TWL
Jim:
Tim wrote:
You’re still not answering my basic question, Jim. Adultery has directly threatened more marriages than any gay marriage ever has. Adultery has directly changed more children’s lives than any gay marriage ever has.
I did answer the question, you just dismissed it as an abstraction.
No, actually, I didn’t. Your answer was saying that you weren’t concerned about any particular married couple, but about the institution of marriage as a whole.
“The institution of marriage as a whole” IS an abstraction, Jim. I’m not saying your argument was one; I’m saying that your willingness to hurt concrete individuals for the sake of saving an abstraction is disheartening.
I have stated repeatedly on this thread and others that the same Christian leaders who strongly oppose homosexuality also oppose adultery (James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, James Kennedy, to name a few).
But not to the point of LEGISLATING AGAINST IT. Adultery is condemned more often and more strongly in the Bible than homosexuality is — it’s one of the Commandments, for heaven’s sake. And, as I said before and you more or less brushed aside, adultery is directly responsible for more failed marriages than any aspect of any homosexual relationship.
You can say “oh, they’re against adultery too” if you like — but based on their actions and the battles they choose to fight, they (and you) consider homosexuality the threat and not adultery. That is logically inconsistent with their (and your) stated goals.
Bottom line, I agree that adultery is a problem. The focus on gay marriage is because it is making into law something that will undermine the value of marriage. While adultery may still occur, it is by no means being put into law.
Huh? Adultery already is legal, and is happening in far greater numbers than homosexual relationships.
There has been, without doubt, a change in moral values. Sexual values is a great example. Go back 50 years, it was not acceptable to “live together” before marriage. It may have been done, but it was not considered moral. Today it is. You may think that this is ok. I think it has hurt our society as much as adultery has done.
Here’s where I challenge your generalizations again.
My wife and I lived together before we were married (sort of … certainly enough to qualify under your definition, I’m sure). At this point, we’ve been married for 13+ years and have a thirteen-week-old daughter who brings joy to our lives at a rate far greater than she takes sleep from it (large though the latter is some days).
Your statement above implies that you consider our marriage somehow less moral or less valid than the marriage of a couple who never lived together before marriage.
I’ll ask you point-blank: is that your belief?
A good friend of mine is living with her fiancee now. Another pair of good friends of mine didn’t get married until she was already pregnant with their son. Are their marriages less moral than someone who didn’t do that? And are you prepared to legislate to that effect?
I think divorce is, by far, a greater threat than adultery to marriage.
Given that the latter rather frequently leads to the former, I’m intrigued by your willingness to make the distinction.
Change is not always bad, but is also not always good. In this circumstance, allowing gay marriage will cause a fundamental change in our society. The only question is whether that is a good or bad thing, not whether it will have an impact.
I think I’d agree with this on the whole, though I’d dispute how “fundamental” a change it would really be. Has interracial marriage created a fundamental shift in society? Many of the same arguments, religious or otherwise, were used to argue against legalizing that.
You didn’t like my Copernican example; fine. Here’s another one: 150 years ago, women couldn’t vote. The consensus belief for a long period of time was that women couldn’t be trusted to make good judgements in that regard. When women got the vote, there was no shortage of wailing, gnashing of teeth, and claims that American democracy was doomed.
Well, women have voted for a while now, and they’ve proven no worse at it than men.
That was a societal shift — an action, to use your word, rather than a clarification of existing fact. It was a change that was heavily resisted (including by most Christian churches, BTW), but in the end has strengthened society rather than weakened it.
is there some reason this parallel’s not apt?
Lastly, a question which I hope will give us some more common ground, or at least clarify the terms of the discussion. Kingbobb earlier suggested taking marriage out of the realm of the government entirely, and making all relationships “civil unions” so far as the state is concerned. That would leave any individual faith to define marriage as it saw fit, and those couples who wanted a religious blessing could find an institution willing and happy to give it.
Would that change your support for an anti-gay-marriage amendment? (I will have a follow-up question. 🙂
TWL
eclark1849 wrote…
we should be able to establish it [homosexuality as a genetic trait] AS fact. If someone wants to teach it as a theory, I have no qualms with that.
The earlier discussion about the scientific method was completely lost on you, wasn’t it?
First, of all Tim, congratulations on the new tyke. 🙂
Second, I do not believe that legalizing gay marriage will cause a fundamental change in our society; I think it will simply be the recognition that there already has been one.
Last, can someone please tell me how to format links in the form of text?
Thanks.
Toby: As far as what humans evolved from, it probably ain’t walking around anymore, but humans and other primates have a common ancestor.
Monkeys.
Luigi Novi: Humans did not evolve from monkeys. (Or was that last word just intended as a jab at someone, and not a follow-through from what came before it?)
That OTHER John Byrne: Luigi- Toby usually punctuates all his postings with ‘Monkeys.’ In this case, it’s either an ironic coincidence, or Toby’s being a little cheeky by having some fun with his online habits.
-tOjb
Luigi Novi wrote…
Last, can someone please tell me how to format links in the form of text?
<a href=”http://link.html”>Text here</a>
I hope the above shows up, I had to do some experimenting.
This is a test
Well, the format worked, but the link didn’t. Where do you place the url? In between the quotation marks? That’s where I placed the test url.
Brak, thank you. Btw, since we’re on signatures and whatnot, what’s with “The Other John Byrne”? Is that actually your name?
It looks like your link would have worked if you had put just http://www.nitcentral.com/ in between the quotation marks, without the malibulist stuff that seems to be there.
Luigi: What’s with “The Other John Byrne”? Is that actually your name?
Yep. It’s led to all sorts of interesting (and sometimes threatening) conversations at cons and in online forums, since I’m pretty much a polar opposite of John Byrne the artist. I figure it’d probably cause all kinds of chaos if someone named ‘John Byrne’ showed up on PAD’s board and started agreeing with him; hence the forced distinction.
“When it comes to homosexuality, there is an overwhelmingly unanimous voice for almost 2000 years agreeing that the Bible condmens it. So the analogy does not hold up.”
the bible comdemns it. well, too bad then that homosexuality predates the bible (see also: ancient greeks). too bad then that there are billions of people who dont follow the bible.
Look, you wanna follow the bible’s teachings, fine and dandy. But don’t you dare try to foist it on me.
And don’t you dare try to use it to make secular policy. (see also: treaty of tripoli – “As the United States is in now way a christian nation”)
The Bible Condemns Homosexuality? fine. The constitution doesn’t, and thats what matters for lawmakers and secular society.
Hi, first-time poster (but long-time lurker) here…
I’ve been reading this discussion since the beginning and suddenly something struck me. Would you like to know what it was?
If I see correctly, even conservatives on this board are against the law Mr. Allen proposed.
Meanwhile, in my country (I live in Poland). there are many people (even among moderate conservatives) who would be quite happy with such law. Even today I spoke with two people (in no way religious fanatics), who seriously said that homosexuality is a sin and therefore there is a need to censor books, movies etc. in which it is shown.
It’s quite terryfing how many people in my country do not get the idea of “free speech”…
BTW. Sorry for my poor English. 🙁
Maybe I missed it, where are the groups that are trying to tell everyone that murder, waging war, lying, and stealing are acceptable?
Try listening sometime to a gang member, attempting to justfy what he and his homies do. They gotta keep people from dissin em, an dat means sometimes you gotta pop a cap in somebody’s ášš so’s he’ll respect you good an give you your props. An stealin stuff, thass jus because the Man keeps us street folk down, and we jus be tryin to make things more equal, y’know?
If you find the presence of gáņgbáņgërš distasteful (and who could blame you?), try hardcore rap. You might have to bust out a lyric sheet in order to make out what they’re saying, but you’ll find a lot of attempts to justify murder, theft, lying, and rape – and attempts to get you to call it by another name, in order to make it more palatable.
Piotr:
Your English is excellent, as is your understanding of the value of free speech.
Keep up the good fight. I don’t know if you are aware of this, but it used to be common in this country for people to make jokes about the Polish (I don’t know why the Poles got picked on over Checkylsylvakia…ok, now I know. It’s easier to spell Poland). After watching the way Poland embraced the Solidarity movement and exposed the first big chink in the armor of Soviet domination such jokes fell out of fashion. You and your countrymen have been an inspiration.
Den said Well, Den, Novafan has won a hundred copies of Youngblood #1, signed by Rob Liefeld himself!
I’ll be expecting this right away. Rob rocks!!!
I said Prove that evolution is a fact Luigi.
to which Luigi said No.
and … You challenged me to show lies on the part of the mendanonymously-named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and after I spent a good deal of time composing a post detailing their falsehoods in great detail, you stonewalled on it. I
Michael said Or did the gays make the first move by existing?
Didn’t they make their first move in Sodom and Gomorrah?
That was probably a bad move though.
Novafan said…
Why not get our Scientific peers together to say that since homosexuality exists in the Animal world that it’s natural for it to exist in humans?
Scientists say that [i]all the time[/i]!
Novafan said…
Didn’t scientists in the past use the Peer Review process to prove that the world was flat and that the Universe revolved around the Earth.
They most certainly did not, as flat-earth theories were debunked well before the rise of the modern scientific method.
I wouldn’t bother, Jeff. Our dear troll is clearly just here to stir things up, not to engage in any sort of discussion.
Back to the shroud with ‘im, I say.
TWL
For some reason, I’ve been reluctant to give up on the guy. I keep hoping he’ll disappear and come back under his real name to join the fun.
Bladestar, on the other hand, is just flat-out embarrassing to me.
Tim said I wouldn’t bother, Jeff. Our dear troll is clearly just here to stir things up, not to engage in any sort of discussion. Back to the shroud with ‘im, I say.
Funny, anyone who doesn’t share your illustrious point of view is a troll.
You’re just so much more intelligent than everyone else here aren’t you? I bet you say that to yourself in the mirror all the time.
Jeff said For some reason, I’ve been reluctant to give up on the guy. I keep hoping he’ll disappear and come back under his real name to join the fun.
Jeff, everytime I start to forget the constant negative things you say about me, you continually say something to make me change my mind.
Get over it already.
That’s funny, I didn’t realize saying that I’m still willing to read and respond to your messages, and that I wish you’d use your real name (thus posting on a “blank slate” with everyone else here) was an insult.
I’ve changed my mind. Shroud on.
Doesn’t say much about your self-image or intelligence Jeff if you let total strangers embarass you… Glad I embarass you, so I don’t know or give a rat’s ášš about you.
BTW… do you people ever sleep or work? I walk away from the computer for a few hours and the thread just explodes….
Toby: As far as what humans evolved from, it probably ain’t walking around anymore, but humans and other primates have a common ancestor. Monkeys.
Luigi Novi: Humans did not evolve from monkeys. (Or was that last word just intended as a jab at someone, and not a follow-through from what came before it?)
No, it’s just my goofy way of signing all my posts “Monkeys”. I’ve just always thought monkeys were neat to the point of it being a major in-joke in my family. I recently discovered that my mom was over due with me until she and my dad went to the circus, and she promptly went into labor. She thinks that’s why I like monkeys so much (though to be honest, I’m in awe of pretty much all life, from mites and ants to whales and tigers).
Monkeys.
From Institute for Creation Research:
“One of the self-serving arguments of modern evolutionists is their rather arrogant claim that creationist scientists are not real scientists. No matter that a large number of creationists have earned authentic Ph.D. degrees in science, hold responsible scientific positions and have published numerous scientific articles and books
Jeff said That’s funny, I didn’t realize saying that I’m still willing to read and respond to your messages, and that I wish you’d use your real name (thus posting on a “blank slate” with everyone else here) was an insult. I’ve changed my mind. Shroud on.
You are hilarious. I will read every post and respond to everyone I can, even if I don’t agree with the poster who posts. I even respond to Bladestar, :0).
What you actually said was For some reason, I’ve been reluctant to give up on the guy.
Which was a response to TWL’s calling me a troll who doesn’t add to the discussion, which meant to me that you agreed with him. Thus, my knee-jerk response to you.
I would like to know how many people here can actually carry any type of conversation without attacking another individual. Is there anyone here that can own up to that?
“Didn’t they make their first move in Sodom and Gomorrah?”
Not necessarily. Many interpert that the reason for God’s anger was because the cities were engaging in pure debauchery (sp?), not just with homosexual behavior.
And that the incident with the angels was an act of inhospitibility. Also, the townspeople who demanded ‘to know’ the visitors wanted to rape them. As I’m sure you’re aware, rape isn’t a sexual act, it’s an act of violence.
toby said No, it’s just my goofy way of signing all my posts “Monkeys”.
I think it’s pretty kewl. :0)
Bladestar said BTW… do you people ever sleep or work? I walk away from the computer for a few hours and the thread just explodes….
sleep? what’s that?