The word ‘the’ is purposely misspelled. I don’t where ‘teh gay’ comes from, but it’s normally associated with those who are people, especially Christians over their views of homosexuality.
Many people were happy and thrilled when Ted Haggard was forced to resign from the NAE and step down from his role as Pastor of the 14,000 member church he led. Quite frankly, it’s pretty pathetic and a little weird for somebody to be happy about another person’s fall even if he was being hypocritical.
With that being said, the conversation always turns back to critics of Christians and their attitudes towards homosexuals. Mark Morford, who gets paid to write some of the shittiest columns in American journalism has a long screed here about evangelicals hopefully coming to their senses and just accepting homosexuality:
It’s as sad as it is obvious. You’ll find no evangelical, no Christian leader anywhere coming out and saying: Let’s do something different. Let’s take this shocking Haggard scandal as a cosmic sign, as a big rainbow-colored warning flag that maybe, just maybe we need to look at this gay issue with a little more love and a little less nauseating pseudo-spiritual homophobic dogma. Maybe now is the time to rethink this hateful ideology that has kept us so deep in fear and mistrust and sexual agony for so long. Can I get a praise Jesus?
And there it is. The magic word: hateful. If you believe homosexuality is wrong, then you ‘hate.’ It is an absurd conclusion. While I have written about my distaste for the attitudes expressed by people like James Dobson and Jerry Falwell towards homosexuals, to the most evangelicals it is not all about the ‘hate’ when it comes to homosexuality. Not at all. It’s just that those on the other side of the fence don’t want to hear about it being a sin. Now here’s the thing. Just because I say that homosexuality is a sin, doesn’t mean I am putting myself on a pedestal and passing judgment on other people. I cannot do that. Why? Because I sin. Everybody does. We all fall short of the glory of God. That’s why Jesus died on the cross. To pay in his blood, for our sins. The mere fact of saying, “I am Christian” is an acknowledgment of being somebody that sins. That being said, simply dismissing a person’s viewpoint about homosexuality as ‘hatred’ is nothing but intellectual laziness.
There are those who argue, “Well, homosexuality is something that people are born with, so how can God declare that the act is a sin?” The problem is, it is not something people are born with. This is where people like John Cole put their foot in their mouths. Cole is one that sneers at Christians and their attitudes about homosexuality. Why? Because homosexuality is natural and there is nothing wrong with it.
Why does he put his foot in his mouth? Because for somebody who abandoned the GOP in part because of their supposed refusal to accept science, he apparently accepts that gay people are gay because they’re born that way. However, there is not a shred of scientific evidence that supports such a theory. Sure, studies have been done. The most famous was by a geneticist by the name of Dean Hamer back in 1993. Yet, even Hamer now admits that his research was flawed and says “There is not a single master gene that makes people gay.”
Unless it is proven with some evidence, it is a choice. There is a tired argument that is used by gay people which goes something like, “Why would I choose to be somebody that is discriminated against and ostracized?” It’s a bogus question. We can’t say for sure why people are attracted to others. For instance, I used to have a buddy that was attracted to very thin women. He was attracted to models like Kate Moss. Me? I preferred a woman with a little meat on her bones like Kathy Ireland. Some women like tall men, some like bald men. And some men like other men. But it’s not something that is genetic.
If one is going to argue that homosexuality is in fact something people are born with, then they’re going to have to address the argument that a condition such as pedophilia is something people are born with. Usually, this tends to make those who argue in favor of homosexuality being perfectly normal get all self-righteous: “How dare you compare a criminal act like pedophilia to two consenting adults of the same sex being in love!?” It’s another bogus tactic. Nobody is saying pedophilia is the same thing as homosexuality. But these men (and sometimes women) are attracted to young boys and young girls. If their attraction to young boys or girls is something they are born with and therefore cannot help, how can we justify laws that make their actions criminal? How can we thrown them in jail for something that is genetic – something which they are born with?
In getting to the other side of the equation, Christians do need to change their attitude. People sometimes seem to make the illogical leap that if you believe homosexuality is a sin, then you also believe homosexuals are doomed to spend eternity in hell. (Now remember, we’re discussing Christian beliefs as they pertain to sin, salvation, etc. We’re not discussing Christianity as part of a theological debate.) and that is wrong, but it is mostly our fault. If there is any person who says they are Christian and says that homosexuals are going to hell simply for being homosexual, they’re wrong. Being gay is not a sin. Gay people will go to heaven just as straight people will. There are gay people that will spend eternity separated from God and there will be straight people who will suffer the same fate. The largest gripe I have with the evangelical movement is their hostile attitude which does not project an attitude of love. And when I say love, I am not talking about the condescending, “Oh, you poor person. I just want to help you!” kind of ‘love.’ But an openness with people in the same manner that Jesus had.
Moving on from the religious aspect, the next step delves into the arena of so called ‘rights.’ Let’s be clear about one thing: civil marriage in this country is not a right. People often are confuse privileges with rights. If marriage were a right, there would be no restrictions. Yet, the Supreme Court upheld the bans on polygamy against Mormons. I cannot legally marry my mother or my brother. In most states there is a minimum age. Civil marriage is a privilege, not a right. The legislature is where the issue belongs, not in the courts. The NJ State Supreme court’s recent decision on the issue was a disgrace. They basically ordered the NJ legislature to write new laws that would give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, but didn’t said the legislature did not have to specifically legalize gay marriage. It was an absurd ruling and the NJ legislature, if they had any stones, would simply ignore it. It is a separation of powers issue. The court has no standing to order the legislature to create laws. With regard to civil unions, once again let the democratic process play itself out.
As far as I am concerned, the debate cannot go forward until people like Morford and Cole stop referring to evangelical Christians as ‘lunatics’ and ‘haters’ and people like James Dobson stop referring to homosexuals as ‘deviants.’ Both sides are preventing any constructive debate.
November 10th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
See I told you having Jay C was a bad influence.
“Unless it is proven with some evidence, it is a choice.”
So without evidence contrary to your belief, you’re right. Pulled that right out of his play book. How about you factually and scientifically prove your stance. If your stance is based only on faith, then that is extremely faulty reasoning.
I would think that you’ve done enough reading on this, where most homosexuals, especially men, feel that way thier whole lives. They feel feminine, even as children. Being attracted to the opposite sex is not something that even occurs to them. Pedophilia is actually an accurate comparison, bearing in mind that pedophilia is not a crime; the crime stems from the pedophilia. Most active pedophiles have felt those urges for the majority of thier adult life. The pedophile and homosexual do not choose to be attracted to thier intended “person”. They only choose to act on it.
“the debate cannot go forward”
It shouldn’t be a debate at all. CHRISTIANS do not belong in anyone else’s bedroom but their own. If two guys want sleep, pass on property, f*ck, fight, and choose drapes, that is their damn business. They are American citizens and they have all the rights and PRIVILEGES of other American citizens. Period. End of story. The laws count for everyone. Or they would if it weren’t for the anti-Christian principles of the Christian right.
The NJ decision was the right one. The Christians can keep their precious word, just make sure everyone has the same rights and privileges. What’s wrong with that?
November 10th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
Ahhhh, that’s why it was familiar. I thought Ricky wrote this. Sorry. My bad.
Everything else still stands.
November 10th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
And I have no sympathy for Haggard. When you build your “career in Jesus” being a firm supporter of disenfranchising other American citizens, and then want everyone to forgive you cuz you don’t have the strength of character to be an honest hate-filled asshole: my answer is “f*ck you, and the KJV you rode in on.”
November 10th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Yet, even Hamer now admits that his research was flawed and says “There is not a single master gene that makes people gay.”
Unless it is proven with some evidence, it is a choice.
I’m sure this post was meant to provoke, and I will take the bait. I’ll have a lot to say about it later… But right now I’ll remark on the above quote and one other thing, because I don’t have time to deconstruct the entire thing. On the above remark – One reason the right is accused of being anti-science is that they draw some pretty wild conclusions from science that isn’t hard to understand. Yes, there have been studies, and they have led to not just shreds, but intertwined strands of evidence for the genetic cause of homosexuality. Nothing conclusive, mind you, but strong hints – especially in the identical twin studies, and especially for men. There is also testimony from numbers of gay people that they knew they were different, or new they were gay from pre-adolescence. No, there is not likely to be found a single master gene that controls homosexuality – just like there is not a single master gene that controls eye color, hair color, or many other genetically determined traits. It turns out genetics is complicated, and many traits rely on the interplay of a number of different genes, sometimes in mysterious ways.
And, you make an elementary mistake in logic to state that, until proven hereditary, the trait is a choice. That’s pretty wrong. It’s quite possible that it is hereditary and we simply don’t know it. That’s about like someone in 1900 saying that until hereditary is proven to be controlled by molecular chemistry, it is controlled by hydraulics. Duh… no.
The other point is why we take a dim view of the anti-gay people… It’s the same reason you might take a dim view of it if I condemned you for the positions you use with your wife. It’s none of my damn business. The fact that I am willing to stick my nose in it, and try to tell you what is acceptable, whether it is a choice or natural, etc., etc., just shows that I don’t have basic respect for you as a person. Some of the religious right take this sanctimoniousness to lunatic extremes (Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum, for instance)... others are just followers. Whatever the position on the spectrum, it is obvious from the attitudes & actions of those who are on a crusade against gays and/or equality for gays that kindness and care for their victims is not their motivation. Maybe they don’t think of it as “hate” but then again, I’ve heard people who didn’t think of it as hateful to be appreciative of (_insert minority or gender here__) who “knows their place”.
By their fruits, you shall know them, you know…
November 10th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
(No pun intended)
November 10th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Hey, we ought to have a good discussion with this one. Maybe even an intra-blog debate! I’m short on time so I’ll go quickly:
1. I have no idea if a person is born gay. I tend to go with Occam’s razor on most things & since almost every gay person has said that it’s not a choice, I tend to ponder the notion that maybe not ALL of them are lying. If I had to make a choice, I’d say “yeah, they’re probably born that way”.
2. Too many teenagers have committed suicide for it simply to be a choice and too many means that it’s not simply a case of confusion.
3. “Intertwiend strands of evidence”?
Hey, pretend “gay” is switched with “Intelligent Design” and then run with the concept that “intertwined strands of evidence” is now suddenly acceptable science. Funny how the scientific benchmarks move along with goalposts depending on how everyone needs them to. No, there is no science proving ID and there is no science proving gayness. If you’re gonna accept some science in one direction, you include some in all directions.
4. If it’s none of my biz (and it’s not, btw) what two guys are doing & they deserve all the rights & priveleges, then where can I find the lefty petitition to include harems and polygamy into the national “rights” brigade? Who are you to say it’s only two adults?
5. Yeah, I think pedophelia is something someone is born with. I’ve talked with law enforcement folks who say that the recitivism rate backs up that assertion & that once they catch a pedophile, they know that they’ll continue to have to keep an eye on them when they get out because they never, ever, change. Ever.
6. So, with the above into account, “why would God allow someone to be born that way?” Kids are born HIV positive, with cancer, SIDS, midgets (Kos….okay, that was a joke for smijer
).....I don’t think God is sitting in heaven micromanaging everything and puts a “curse” on some newborn or that it’d be because of something its parents did. Then again, maybe he is. I dunno. I do know that people are born with all sorts of things, and a lot of them are much “worse” (emphasis on the quotes) than being gay.
7. Someone gay is no different to God than someone living in adultery. That means Mr. church goer on his third wife is living in sin just like the flamingest gay. Sin is sin.
8. The church can’t “try a new direction”. The company manual is set in stone and there are 66 books in it. Cafeteria catholisism/Christianity is practiced by a lot of folks, but the book stands true. Period. We all falter.
9. Seems as though I had more time than I thought.
10. One way the various churches can show their true teachings of Christ is to accept gays in the same manner that they accept other sinners (sometimes much worse sinners on earth).
11. Gay men are not necessarily efiminate. I met Michael Demmons & he’s as cool as any other person you’d ever come across and he’s no less masculine than your average Joe. Actually, probably more so. Jerry Rice has a wife & kids & is the greatest WR of all time and you can’t tell me that he hasn’t made virtually every person’s gaydar go off.
12. Where is the criticism of the folks outing gay Republicans? Or, is that “okay” because it’s excusable? You know, wrong if Christians do it, okay if Democrats do it? Why is Bill Maher and John Avarosis going into folks’ bedrooms, but it’s okay because it’s the “right” bedrooms and for the “right” reasons? Is there any intellectual consistency out there? I’ve yet to see it.
13. One doesn’t have to be a bigot to be against gay marriage.
14. Likewise, one doesn’t have to be a bigot to be against polygamy. Somehow, though, you’re only hateful if you’re against gay marriage.
15. Enough bashing of faith.
16. Why is what I make “your” damn business? Why is what charities and how much I give “your” damn business? If I want itemized deductions, I have to turn that over to “you”, the government. I can go on.
17. “How about you factually and scientifically prove your stance. If your stance is based only on faith, then that is extremely faulty reasoning.” Careful…someone may charge you with proving your stance…and it’s one that cannot be proven.
18. Again, I support civil unions from the standpoint of my being libertarian on the issue. If an American pays taxes, they should get the same rights. Marriage, however, is a guy & a gal. Up is still up, down is still down and water is still wet. And, yes, “is” is still “is”.
19. Darn it, tried to make it to 20.
November 10th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
You guys knew I took yoga, right?
November 10th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
BTW, Cole is doing his current schtick because he’s found his niche. And, he’s a genius for filling that void. You’ve probably read Boortz but if you’ve ever listened to him, you can understand his success because he’s a libertarian & therefore can wail about the Dems AND the Republicans, knowing that he has to defend virtually nothing because there is nothing in practice to defend: only ideology and theory. Likewise, Cole has brilliantly carved out a section as a Kevin Phillips-esque “Republican” who does nothing more than bash Republicans and demand nothing less than Jesus-like perfection by way of policy that even Reagan couldn’t have delivered. So, until that time, he can sling arrows at the GOP while claiming his rightful place on the proverbial cross, to the delight of the adoring left.
Like I said: Genius.
BTW, Buck/smijer, I hear Boortz and he said that he voted for zero GOPers on Tuesday, despite what he typed the previous week. He said that he just couldn’t bring himself to push the button next to a Republican. So, yes, he is the epitome of “Libertarian”, he’s just on the side of most GOPers when it comes to national security.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
OK!
A number of other reasons, but yeah.
Yeah.
Apples and oranges. For ID, there are arguments that try and fail to show that this or that piece of evidence is “for” ID. Nothing that could be confused with evidence clutters the journals of the Discovery Institute – at least nothing more than the tiniest of trifles, to stack up against heaps of evidence for evolution. I’ll take the philosophical arguments of the naturalist against the philosophical arguments of the IDist any day – but you knew that already.
No, nothing is proven. To say that in idea isn’t proven doesn’t really do much toward classifying the idea. Hey, intelligent design isn’t proven, and string theory isn’t proven – so they’re the same thing, right? Not really. The point is that there is evidence for congenital gayness. A good share of it. Nothing substantial against it, though we have had chances to find evidence against. This isn’t enough to make it strong theory, but enough to make it a betting man’s favorite by a mile.
And besides the evidence for a genetic factor, there are plenty of good reasons to believe it isn’t a simple choice, even if there are bigger factors than genetics involved – as you pointed out.
Your points one and two are on the money. They are simple and self-evident. So, it stands to reason that there is something fishy about the attitudes expressed by so many in the anti-gay movement who insist that gayness is a choice, and that we should treat gay people as though their whimsical fancies are not worthy the same respect that we give to heterosexual commitments.
Four points, in order of increasing importance (the first is a throwaway point, but it might as well be made):
a) You don’t hear a lot of polygamists asking for “equal rights”.
b) Polygamist relationships (with the possible exception of some “swingers” groups) are rarely egalitarian. Equal rights is about… well… equality – you know – fairness & stuff. Polygamy seems to be a cultural institution more than a personal orientation – and a cultural institution that has popped up here & there among anti-egalitarian, mainly patriarchal, cultures. It isn’t going to be high on the priority list to push equality for inequality.
c) See point b). Polygamist rights don’t apply to a class of individuals with an inborn orientation. Where homosexuality has been ubiquitous throughout recorded history in every race and culture, polygamy has been an isolated social movement. Advocates for equality aren’t looking to make all social movements the same – some are preferable to others – and those that are worth their salt rarely need a hand up from the government (religious right dominionists take note).
d) Despite all this, I for one, am open to a discussion about equal rights for polygamist marriage. I don’t think I would favor it, but I’m not going to crusade against it. If Christianists who disapproved of gay marriage took this attitude – perhaps making a few coherent points and letting the legislators and courts do their jobs without all the hubbub, then I, for one, would have a lot more respect for them. Instead, their instincts lead them to take sides with radicals and make a crusade out of their opposition.
This is kind of academic, because pedophilia harms kids and violates the concept of informed consent, which is a bedrock of the ethical approach to matters of sexual intercourse. So it doesn’t matter whether this is something people are born with. However, it is also likely true that pedophilia is most often the result of being abused as a child. That isn’t something you are born with, but rather a trauma that changes you forever. And, again, we see it stratified – in some cultural settings, pedophilia is rampant; in others it is rare. If it were inborn, then I think we would see it more ubiquitously. That said, these are just casual observations that favor one view, but the contrary view may well be true, instead.
smijer – tread carefully when opening a theological debate… Oh, what the hell… the view I took when I was a confused and liberal quasi-Christian (this was about 6 months when I was madly in love with a liberal Christian girl)... was that if it were a sin not only would God not “let” someone be born that way – He wouldn’t make someone that way. Last I checked, the Bible is pretty clear that God is intimately involved in making people, starting in the womb. By His hands we all are made, or something. So, assuming pedophilia isn’t congenital, and that having HIV, cancer, SIDS, or being a midget Kos isn’t a sin, then none of those matters reflect on that particular argument.
On the other hand, while homosexuality is rarely mentioned in the Bible, especially the New Testament, it is apparent that the Bible doesn’t approve of it – or at least some forms of it. And that’s where the theology gets deep… If you accept the apparent truth of the position that people are born gay, then you have to reject either 1) the notion that God makes people, including their sexual orientation, which is arguably the Biblical position, 2) the notion that homosexuality is a sin, which is arguably the Biblical position, or 3) the notion that God would not create someone with sin. I think Calvinists reject 3). Others look closely at the Pauline & Levitical condemnations of gay and say that they are condemnations of Ritual Pagan Gay, or Battlefield (or other setting) Rape Gay, or something – not condemnations of Gay pure & simple, rejecting point 2). Others kind of fudge point 1) with mutterings about original sin having worked its way into the genetic code.
Of course, assuming for a moment that gay is sin, that doesn’t necessarily make it the role of the priest to preach that. Some denominations, admittedly mostly liberal ones, have the priest’s role to preach Christ’s message rather than condemn sin – and leave it up to the individual’s conscience to decide whether or not thing X is a sin. (Their first hint is that it’s got an ‘X’ in the name. ha ha). It’s easier to take a benevolent view of this style of preaching, because while it doesn’t hurt anyone to hear a preacher tell them that Demon Whiskey is a sin, it can hurt people to hear a preacher (whom kids are erroneously taught are especially wise and trustworthy people) to hear that it is a sin to have the only kind of relationships that one is capable of being fulfilled by.
See point 6. While someone should rightfully feel guilt and shame over living in adultery (at least in the popular sense of the word), because adultery hurts people, one should not be made to feel guilt and shame over having a committed relationship with someone they can truly love.
This is contradicted by the fact that the church has been moving in all sorts of different “new directions” for the last 2000 years. Arguably, the notion that the Bible is set in stone and has the final word on all matters is itself a “new direction”. Certainly it isn’t the only direction the church has taken in the last 2000 years.
Even if one argues (and they may, and will have a case – and though that is a different debate, I have sympathy for their case, but think it ultimately fails) that the Bible is set in stone and plainly lays out everything fundamental to Christianity, still see point 6. People are (or should be) capable of reading it for themselves, exercising their own reason and conscience in relation to it, and deciding for themselves whether thing X is a “sin”.
And, if one proves conclusively that the fundamentalist view of the Bible is the only valid Christian one, and that all preachers should preach about which things are sinful, including homosexuality, then see point 6. Right and wrong – helping rather than hurting – these things are more important than any religion (or “personal relationship”) – including Christianity. What we criticize radical Muslims for is hurting people in the name of God. Goose & Gander, don’t you know.
Sheesh
!
A small step, maybe, but a worthy one.
Tell me about it. I had a friend in Alabama who was openly gay, but no one knew it. When we went out, all the hot girls followed him around like so many adoring puppies and left me to cry in my beer.
Right or wrong, (and in this case, I strongly agree that it is wrong), it is human nature to treat enemies who happen to be utter hypocrites by a different standard than one treats “the innocent”. And, while I stress it is utterly wrong, Maher & Avarosis are not engaged in it for the purpose of denigrating their victim’s sexual pecadilloes, but rather in order to highlight their perceived hypocrisy. Maher & Avarosis are acting irresponsibly and stupidly as part of a campaign for fairness. I’m not going to squeal as much about that as I will about someone acting irresponsibly and craftily as part of a campaign against fairness. But, as you’ve noticed before perhaps, I do sometimes squeal against both.
One doesn’t have to be crazy to work here, but it shuuuuree helps. Except, perhaps, as an individual exercise (and normally a poorly performed one), there’s little other reason for adopting such a stance. And I can think of no other reason for crusading against it.
Remind me of that next time Jerry Falwell blames a major national tragedy on polygamists… oh … wait…
I thought you guys were against unilateral disarmament? ;P
Seriously though… I try not to bash faith. I do try to make arguments against giving faith undue influence in one’s life (and I believe that it doesn’t take much influence to reach that “undue” threshhold). But faith-motivated, or faith-excused, crusades to hurt people different than yourself (or scarily similar to yourself – see Ted Haggard) – that, I bash.
What you make is “our” damn business only because and only to the point of enforcing the fact that we help you make it, and you owe some of it back to us. I don’t think we will have time to argue the difference between the privacy – intimacy – about one’s family love and the privacy owed to a person on their personal finances. I doubt we really differ that much about it anyway. For the record, I don’t think you should have to disclose your income to me or any other private citizen. Putting it on your 1040 is plenty. And, I don’t think you should be required to even put your charitable giving on your 1040, but it makes sense for the .gov to give you some tax breaks on it if you do.
17. “How about you factually and scientifically prove your stance. If your stance is based only on faith, then that is extremely faulty reasoning.” Careful…someone may charge you with proving your stance…and it’s one that cannot be proven.
I hate this word: “prove”. Except when used correctly by mathematicians. I think we should argue the merits of our relative stances, and where appropriate, show scientific justifications for our degree of confidence in them. That’s something I intend to do in short order where it concerns whether gay is “genetic”, “a choice”, “natural”, etc…
But I agree with you – goose & gander & all that.
I can understand this sentiment. I disagree with it because I don’t like the idea of making second-class citizens of anyone. I don’t mind if religious marriage remains a guy & a gal… but if there is civil marriage, it should be for everybody. And if it is to be civil “unions” – then civil marriage should be discarded. But, I’m not an ideological purist. I can make common cause with those who support civil unions but disagree with civil marriage while the alternative is nothing.
20. I’ll try to figure out how to pingback here when I do the big post on “natural”, “genetic”, and “choice.” Beat you to 20.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
So without evidence contrary to your belief, you’re right. Pulled that right out of his play book. How about you factually and scientifically prove your stance. If your stance is based only on faith, then that is extremely faulty reasoning.
Cassidy, sorry but the burden is not on me to prove something doesn’t exist. If a person claims Point A to be so, then they need to provide the evidence to support that claim. In this instance, gay people say they are born that way and that it is not a behavioral issue or a choice. They have to prove it, not me.
The pedophile and homosexual do not choose to be attracted to thier intended “person”. They only choose to act on it.
Well, as I said there is no evidence that suggests they do not choose their behavior. But you touched on a very good point about acting on those attractions. It is similar to the point I made.
It shouldn’t be a debate at all. CHRISTIANS do not belong in anyone else’s bedroom but their own.
I didn’t say anything about what they do in their bedrooms.
If two guys want sleep, pass on property, f*ck, fight, and choose drapes, that is their damn business.
Ok. I have no problem with civil unions. But again, it is something that people should seek to get done via the legislative process and not by judicial fiat.
They are American citizens and they have all the rights and PRIVILEGES of other American citizens.
So your argument is that everybody who is an American citizen should have the same rights and privileges, correct? That means 10 year olds should be allowed to vote, brothers should be able marry their sisters, mothers should be allowed to marry their sons, etc. Right?
The NJ decision was the right one.
No Cassidy it was the wrong one, and my strong opposition to their ruling is not based on anything having to do with my faith. The ruling flies in the face of the role of the judiciary and sets a dangerous precedent. I would be opposed to such a ruling even if it was a court telling the legislature they had to write a law saying a prayer had to be said before school started. The role of the judiciary is to interpret law, not write it. You’re marching down the wrong path if you think this decision is right just because you agree with it.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
November 10th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Sorry – burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. You asserted that gay is a choice. Therefore, you have the burden of supporting that view with evidence.
Yes, gay people universally assert that their gayness is not a choice, and they cite their own direct observational experience as support, among other things. That’s direct experience you do not have access too. You have every right to dispute the accuracy of their subjective experience (in this case intersubjective, but not that much better), but at least they are providing some support for their view… and again, there are plenty of other, objective, bits of evidence in support of their view. You have three choices: 1) accept their testimony and other evidence, 2) remain agnostic, or 3) make the contrary assertion. If it’s 3), then the rules of logic place a burden of evidence on you.... a burden you have not even tried to make… a burden you have not even subjective evidence in favor of.
Sorry for the rant… But, some things I just can’t let stand.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Access to... I must have really been carried away…
November 10th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
One last thing…
21. (now I’m way ahead)... I read the posts that Jay C linked, and they both make good points, and neither makes undue criticisms. John C can go off half-cocked, no matter which side he is taking… but I don’t see where that was the case in either of the linked posts. I will have to credit Jay C for linking them, as they do a good job of representing the appropriate anger that John C, myself, and many others feel toward the Dr. Dobsons of the world.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
HA! Wordpress changed my 21. to a 17. -—these [li] tags have a mind of their own.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
And, if you’ll notice, the 17th post (above) is numbered 18. Ha!
November 10th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Going way back, by the way, my characterization of “intertwined threads” was not meant to convey scientific certainty – it was meant to contradict the very wrong notion of “not one single shred”. Anyway….
November 10th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
The NJ court didn’t write the law. They told the legislature to do it. Subtle, but important difference. Inaction is worse than wrong action. Put it on a ballot measure, let the people decide, fine. I can handle that. But, in lieu of that, then the legislature needs to do their job and if they don’t, they need a kick in the ass.
And I’m sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. You’ve made a bold assertion with no evidence or documentation to back it up. And while my stance is equally unprovable, scientifically, there exists volumes of anecdotal evidence from gay folk supporting my stance.
Ricky, I’ve never condoned the outings. I’ve just never felt sorry for the hypocritical bastards it gets done to. They make their own beds and life is a bitch sometimes. Maybe they’ll get a chance in their next life to be nicer and more civil to everyone. And when they slap the WWJD sticker on their car, maybe they’ll really mean it next time.
Bedrooms is a broad term for personal life. It’s the “icky man sex” thing that makes Christians shudder. Having dinner together is just a byproduct
And last but not least, I’ll support any persons right to worship as they please. But using a book of mythology, which is what the Bible is, as the yardstick for governance is the height of idiocy. On that note I propose all Republicans be forced to live with Hades for half a year. Sounds pretty retarded doesn’t it?
November 11th, 2006 at 12:15 am
The NJ court didn’t write the law. They told the legislature to do it.
Yes, I know and such an action is outside of the court’s authority. It’s wrong. Whether you agree with it or not.
Put it on a ballot measure, let the people decide, fine.
Actually, I am not a fan of ballot measures. It flies in the face of representative government.
But, in lieu of that, then the legislature needs to do their job and if they don’t, they need a kick in the ass.
Then why bother having a legislature? If they’re “not going to do their job” then why not just let the courts run the show? The ‘kick in the ass’ the legislature gets is being voted out of office, not having courts dictate what legislation they should be writing.
And I’m sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. You’ve made a bold assertion with no evidence or documentation to back it up.
I don’t have to prove a negative. However, if you want to go by those rules, further on down you say that the Bible is a book of mythology. Fine. Prove it isn’t. Otherwise you’re wrong.
But using a book of mythology, which is what the Bible is, as the yardstick for governance is the height of idiocy.
Might as well get rid of all those murder statutes then…..
November 11th, 2006 at 7:55 am
The assertion you made, which you are asked to support was not a negative assertion. It was a positive assertion that gay is a choice. In a debate, you are always expected to support your assertions.
Since it is a statement about the real world, rather than logical abstractions, you are not expected to prove it. Only to convincingly support it with positive evidence, and to defend it against evidence to the contrary. You have done neither.
And while it is difficult to support some negative propositions (gay is not hereditary), and even more so to support a universal negative (there is no where in the universe where gay exists and is hereditary), it is possible to do so in the former case, and usually very difficult, but sometimes possible in the latter case.
What it means when one says that they do not have to prove a negative is simply that someone else who makes a positive statement cannot ask you to prove its contrary and take your inability to do so as support for their own positive statement. No one has asked you to do this, nor do they take your inability to as evidence for their own positive assertions. It was your choice to positively assert the contrary position, and you should do so, or qualify or withdraw you assertion.
November 11th, 2006 at 8:40 am
Yes, you do have to prove your position. That’s how debating works.
Jay, their is no difference in a book of Greek Mythology and the Old and new Testament. The only difference is that the Bible is still a practiced religion. So you believe your book to be true? So did millions of greeks and romans before that religion died.
Murder is wrong. I don’t need a bible to tell me that. Maybe that’s your problem…
We can agree to disagree. The NJ court didn’t make any laws. it told the Legislature to figure it out.
November 11th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Cassidy,
I’m not sure that you realize how offensive and vile your comments about my faith, and that of most Americans, are coming across. It’s more important than my skin color, my gender, my physical being, my marriage…anything. I don’t preach to others and I open my ears to all points of view, but what you’re doing is worse – to me – than if you were on someone’s site making jokes about race, demeaning jokes about women, making fun of the handicapped, jokes about my wife, etc. I’m not trying to stop you from arguing your point and if you want to go after “the religious right” go right ahead: but please have enough respect for me and others not to denigrate what we hold more precious than anything else in the world.
What’s the difference? Can they tell the legislature to legalize polygamy if they wish?
November 11th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
BTW, the “vile” part was an homage to those who shoot fish in a barrel and mock Andrew Sullivan (yes, redundant, I realize). I thought “gobsmackingly” would make it too obvious.
November 11th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
I’m watching with interest the debate about what falls within the court’s authority. I’m of the opinion that constitutional issues, including minority rights, should not be subject to a popular vote. They should be “written in stone”, and it should be the courts role to enforce them against legislation designed to undermine them. Question to those who disagree with my view: Did the court exceed its authority in Loving v. Virginia, where the anti-miscegnation laws were thrown out? Question II: Would the court be within its authority to overturn a gun ban on grounds of the second amendment, if a popular majority voted to implement a gun ban?
To answer RW’s question: Yes, I think it would be within the courts authority to require a legislature to recognize polygamists rights, but I think that good jurisprudence would probably prevent them doing so.
November 11th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
To things: first, smijer, about the numbers changing. I had to place my numeric comment into a blockquote because it renumbered the entire list. It appears that whatever number you type at the beginning, it assumes that it should instead be the number of the comment.
Second, keep in mind that the New Jersey supreme court has a history of rewriting the state law to suit their needs. I remember the Robert Torricelli ‘dropping out after the date specified in the state law’ debacle. Sad thing is, it appears that NJians are quite comfortable with dishonest, crooked, mob-ridden gov’t, from top to bottom. So, I guess we ‘outsiders’ can do little other than complain (here’s where someone brings up the 60s in the south, as though it’s relevant today).
November 11th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Cassidy,
I think you said that you kinda liked the Dixie Chicks’ music. Heard the Wreckers?
November 11th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Yes, I like the Wreckers. I’m really diggin’ Miranda Lambert, though.
Ricky, my comments on Christianity are from two places. One in how it is currently practiced in it’s exclusive pseudo-political form, that IMHO, completely destroys the foundations of the teachings of Jesus. Secondly, it’s from an objective standpoint. I’m not saying the Bible is meaningless. I’m saying that in an intellectual sense it is no different from a book of greek mythology: two volumes of the collected legends of a religion. from that standpoint, the Bible has no business in being used for governance as a book of greek mythology. I’m a Christian myself. But I also belief that my religion and my politics are two different things.
All that aside, I do apologize that I’ve offended you. That was not my intent.
Lastly, my interpretation of the NJ decision is that the court recognized that all NJ citizens were not being treated equally under the law and therefore decided the Legislature needed to fix that. That does fall under the Judiciaries powers.
November 11th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
The assertion you made, which you are asked to support was not a negative assertion. It was a positive assertion that gay is a choice.
Wrong. The assertion is made by gay people that what they do is not a choice. They say that is the way they were born. They have to prove it. To say that I have to prove they are not born that way is putting the onus on me to prove a negative and that is a logical fallacy.
Jay, their is no difference in a book of Greek Mythology and the Old and new Testament.
Cassidy, you can quibble about things like Noah’s Ark and whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, but to conclude that the Bible is the same as a book of Greek mythology is the same is absurd. People like Solomon, David, Jesus, and Paul actually existed. Zeus didn’t.
Murder is wrong. I don’t need a bible to tell me that. Maybe that’s your problem…
We’re not talking about whether or not what you need a Bible to tell you. You said that using the Bible as “the yardstick for governance is the height of idiocy.” It is no secret that laws against murder and the stigma attached to such a crime was drawn from Biblical precepts, namely the Ten Commandments. Don’t make such sweeping statements next time when they’re not grounded in reality.
The NJ court didn’t make any laws. it told the Legislature to figure it out.
What’s the difference? Again, the court overstepped its bounds. What if the Supreme Court said to Congress, create some legislation banning abortion. You’d howl at the moon over such a thing. I’d join you. We have courts to interpret laws, not to tell the legislature to write them.
I love New Jersey, but the state is run like a JOKE and I’m glad I don’t have to deal with that nonsense anymore.
November 11th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Bullshit Jay. Murder and other crimes against persons was a taboo in societies long before Christianity came around.
I allready answered the NJ thing. I’m just in moderation limbo.
November 11th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
I want to expound more on the religion part. Believe it or not, Ricky, I have a great deal of respect for religion. I respect the ethical framework it brings to peoples’ lives. I respect the good deeds done in it’s name across the world. I respect people who have the strength of character to rely on faith alone.
Believe it or not, I have a very strong sense of faith. I also have faith that God will allow me to make a decision based on what I feel is right, and not on the “company manual”. I also have faith that God wants me to spend every day being the best person I can be and that he would kick my ass if I ever treated someone the way so many other “Christians” treat their fellow human beings. I’m not perfect. On many occasions I have been a complete dick, but I can at least go to bed knowing I tried. I try to live the Golden Rule every day. But I can also take comfort in my own humility, knowing I don’t go out into the world assuming that I am better than those around me, which is what has undermined the practice of Christianity. When the modern Christian gave up his/her humility in Christ and decided that they had reached the “level” they needed to be at to go out and judge, that’s where it has fallen apart. Little do they know, we never reach that level. We are never good enough, as we are always with sin.
What I don’t respect is the abuse of religion to denigrate, damage, or destroy others. When religion crosses that line from being a force of good, then I, as a good person, feel I have no choice but to argue against it. Wahabism is a perfect example. I respect Islam, but these assholes preach the destruction of others. In that case, a few righteous HEAT rounds are applicable. And yes, I am equating the modern, Christian Right with extreme Islam. The similarities of action and thought are their too see. Honestly, everyday that goes by without some radical Christian sect deciding to go ape-shit is a good day in my book.
Too many perversions have happened in the name of my God and Saviour. I do not believe for one second that Jesus would ever allow another group of people to be treated as second-class citizens, all because of their (arguably) inherent nature.
But I also think that “Jesus Laughing” is the most real version of him I’ve ever seen. And don’t even drag me into a conversation on “Jesus Christ: Superstar”; you just might ban me.
BTW. Read “Lamb” by Christopher Moore, and you’ll get a better view on how I feel about God and Jesus. Hell, I’ll be in Augusta by the end of the month, I could possibly mail you my copy.
November 11th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Often gay people do make that assertion… and as I said before they support it with evidence. They do not have to prove it, any more than you have to prove your assertion. This being a statement about the real world, it is not susceptible to proof. It does require evidential support, which does exist if you have paid attention. Their assertion puts no onus on you. You are correct. However, your assertion does place an onus on you. Here, I will quote your assertion, which comes bundled with an attempt to shift the burden of support away from yourself:
You may feel free at any time to qualify your assertion… Here’s one valid qualification you might use: “Until I see more evidence than I have aleady seen, I will not accept the proposition that it is hereditary. Instead, I will acknowledge that I cannot know with certainty whether it is hereditary and will confess to a strong suspicion that it is a choice, despite the lack of evidence for it being a choice.” Here’s another: “I do not know whether it is hereditary or it is a choice, and will reserve judgement until I have more evidence.”
The fact is that many of us lean strongly toward the view that it is not a choice, and that it is at least in part a genetically determined trait, based on several lines of evidence. Those of us who understand the basics of science and logic will confess that our certainty on the matter is less strong than on other matters that are better settled by scientific evidence, but we are quite justified in our view nonetheless. Some of us have examined the potential good and harm that can come from treating our view as correct when evaluating political positions, and have examined the potential good and harm that can come from treating your view as correct when evaluating political positions. I personally, find every ethical and logical reason to give the benefit of the doubt to those gay people who maintain it was not their own choice, and stand to be harmed by a policy that assumes the contrary, rather than to give the benefit of the doubt to those who have no personal knowledge of the matter, very little if any evidence, and maintain that those gay people are liars and wish to create a policy on that basis which is ultimately harmful to those people if they are telling the truth (or perhaps even if they are not).
But that’s all commentary. The basic lesson in logic is this:
You are incorrect in the notion that there can never be a burden to prove a negative.
You are incorrect to try to avoid the onus placed on you by the positive assertion you made.
I recommend you do some research on what is and is not a logical fallacy, and on the question of where the evidential burden lies in a given instance before you make your reply.
November 12th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
More recommended reading on the religion front: Donald Miller… Blue Like Jazz is pretty good. I don’t know – I could do a whole post on whether “how important to you” a matter is makes a difference in how it should be discussed, versus other properties of the matter. My (often-broken) rule is to resist the urge to criticize people and to indulge the urge to criticize ideas.