Glenden BrownI’m Angry About This
Armed wings of parties in the Bush and Blair-backed Iraqi government thought responsible.
Five men. Kidnapped. Murdered. Because they are gay. I can’t keep a civil tongue in my head so I’ll quote MLK Jr.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descening spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love.
I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill will proclaim the rule of the land.
We must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope.
(EDIT)
Okay, I’m feeling more civil. Karen Armstrong has said that “our” fundamentalists have more in common with “their” fundamentalists than they have with “our” moderates and liberals or “their” moderates and liberals. Armstrong argues that fundamentalism is and has always been a reaction to modernity and change. Killing gay men isn’t so different than what our own Christian conservatives advocate - it’s just a matter of degree rather than intent. Christian conservatives in the US want to purge any and all references to gay folk from the public sphere, especially public schools. Christian counseling services that offer to “convert” gay folks into straight folks is about destroying gay people. Efforts to prevent sexual orientation from being added to hate crimes and civil rights laws, to prevent same sex couples from receiving marriage rights are different from Islamic fundamentalist death penalty for gay people only in degree, not intent.
I saw an interview with a group of gay men who were teens in the 50s and 60s and who remember the Pre Stonewall Days when being gay was sufficient to get you locked in jail or an insane asylum, to be subjected against your will to horrific “medical” procedures including shock therapy and lobotomy.
Remember when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were blaming 9/11 on the gays and feminists? Guess what - it’s not a matter of substance, it’s only degree.
December 8th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Probably the most extreme religious fundamentalists at large today are the Salafists, who reserve the right to kill anyone who disagrees with them. This is the brand of Islam favored by Al Qaeda and the Saudi monarchy.
I truly hope there is no exact equivalent in Christianity.
December 10th, 2006 at 8:37 am
pat and jerry must know that god has punished us for the sodomy of gays and straight people, and of course bis’, if they practice wide eyed bungholery. Were punished for haggards’ bungholery too.
Let’s not forget the rest of sin, like usury, which we have spawned on our children, a sin they don’t even know about until too late. Maybe that is the reason god punishes us.
If being a gay male leads to a shortened life statistically, is it wrong to discourage the ACTIONS of the behavior that lead to a shortened life? If what the churches are doing is somehow “wrong”, how is it different than admonishing alcoholics, that are afflicted for life, from drinking? We all know they are “created” with the disease. The only way to mitigate the problem is to not engage in the behavior.
Once again the “choice” issue rears its head, why not just be gay and be satisfied with waxing your carrot? The alternative is risky, especially if one is prone to binge behavior in their sex life. I guess you wouldn’t be gay then or would you? Are you a celibate gay then….or say for example I suppress my desire to couple with animals, counseled against it, am I a “celibate” working on avoiding a dangerous behavior best I can, or just a celibate beast buggerer? I am by the definition used above in the article, a beast buggerer no matter whether I engage in the behavior or not..after all it was just the way I was born and as god made me.
Oh cruel world, to not be with fifi, but that is the choice in order to be obedient to god. Anyone have any scripture talking about the tapping of animals?
December 11th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Sorry Glenn, I’m ruling your comment out of order for assuming facts not in evidence. Claims that gay men’s life expectancy is decreased was based on research using only gay male AIDS patients as the sample population. Your comment is also ruled out of order for assuming that sexual orientation is a disease which is contrary to the position held by the APA - and all leading mental health and medical organizations.
It’s also clear that you do not understand the concept of sexual orientation as an inborn trait rather than chosen behavior. You have confused the notion of a pathological paraphilia (bestiality) with sexual orientation. I would also point out that the concept of consent is key in human sexual relations, a concept which by definition is absent from bestiality. Sexual orientation, on the othe hand, is inborn and characterizes a person’s attractions to, desire to form relationships and emotional connections with other persons.
December 11th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
I was not accounting it as disease, but a lifestyle, which has behavior that can be negative to long term survival, like drinking alcohol.
Uh, morbidity due to aids would be part of the statistical data, because it is for every other group, leaving it out is dishonest, and dangerous.
Well Glendon, by your definition ones orientation is whatever floats yer boat. I have no confusions, I just question what defined “orientation” is. How do you know the animal lust doesn’t represent the true “orientation” of an individual? Be specific. What do you know about animal consent? Many people have better relations and understanding of their pets than they do with their spouse. If we are expect that homosexuality is a born orientation, then we will have to include other minorities sexual proclivities also, on a case by case basis.
I don’t necessarily consider alcoholism a disease, though it is claimed to be so, it is however, a born trait, like being gay is to you, so that is the comparison.
What if one is “non-preferential” and likes having sex with men, women, animals, children(with consent of course)equally, and forms emotional connections equally well with one, as the other? What orientation are these people? In there a class for them? They must be treated equally, as they are born with this predilection, as any gay person, no?
Glendon it is not that I don’t understand the concept of “orientation” as an inborn trait separate from ones gender assignment, I just don’t believe in it.
As example, I know that my friend is gay(male), yet he has ended that behavior by choice, to be with women exclusively, to have a hetero family and embrace that as a way of life. He isn’t gay anymore is he, is he always gay Glendon? This question is a trap so be careful.
For the reality of his life speaks to CHOICE, which is what I believe orientation is. He has been both, by choice, whatever you regard his “orientation” to be, should you determine it, is irrelevant. For if you were to ask him, he would tell you he has BEEN gay, and is now STRAIGHT. To you I suppose he would always be straight, although he lost his virginity to a man. Please explain and be specific if otherwise.
The defining of “oreintation”as fixed, and inborn is distinctly prejudiced against those that would be one or the other orientation by CHOICE. You are somewhat bigoted in regard to them.
Do I or do I not, get to choose what orientation I am, whenever I please, or is it somehow up to you Glendon, and a bunch of psychologists?
December 11th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Glenn - why do you think you know better than people who have been educated, who have studied, who researched? You’re inability to accept the consensus of the medical, mental health the scholarly community is your problem and has little bearing on reality.
Sexual orientation is inborn, not chosen. The mental health community also agrees that gender identity is separate from sexual orientation as well as biological gender; normally, gender identity and biological gender are the same but in a percent of the population they are not.
Paul Cameron, whose research is in question, lost his professional license and standing because his research was so methodologically sloppy; he has a history of throwing out datat that refutes his predetermined conclusions. And Cameron didn’t include gay men with AIDS as part of his sample- they were the whole of his sample.
Does a person stop being straight when they aren’t having sex with someone of other gender? With regard to your friend who has chosen to live as a straight man (it isn’t Ted Haggard is it?): He may be a gay man who has decided to have sex with a woman that doesn’t make him a straight men. I know a huge number of gay men and lesbian women who were married and have children - but they were never straight. They married to conform to social pressure not because they were heterosexual. There are a small number of persons who deliberately choose to engage in sexual behaviors with persons of the same gender but who are not gay; some do it for pay, others because of underlying psychological issues. That proves nothing beyond the ability of persons to engage in sexual behaviors. You may think your question is a trap but it is far from it. It’s a rhetorical red herring. I suppose it passes for wit in your social circle.
Consent is not a complex concept. Your question is another rhetorical red herring. There are valid questions about the age at which consent is legal (for instance, is a mentally handicapped 40 year old capable of giving consent? Legally yes because they are over 18 but he/she may lack the mental capacity to comprehend the meaning of consent); as a matter of law and commonsense, the ability to give consent implies that one understands what one is consenting to; animals and children are incapable of such comprehension and therefore incapable of consent. Therefore pedophilia and bestiality are not relevant counter examples.
As to your final question: Do you get to choose your sexual orientation? At a recent training I attended, we debated the notion of public identification versus personal identification. There are many valid reasons to not honestly self-identify as a gay man or lesbian woman, not the least is the valid and real fear of discrimination. Does claiming you’re straight make you straight? Does having sex with women make you straight? No. Sexual orientation is inborn - most persons fall on a continuum from completely straight to completely gay with the overwhelming majority somewhere in the middle (although it seems to be an inverse bell curve with larger numbers near the ends). But, you do have the right to self identify as you wish; it’s called being in the closet.
December 11th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
I don’t claim to know better, it is self serving research and its conclusions are inconsistent with what I have experienced as anecdote, and this is all that matters to me. I assume in time this assumption will be found out to be basically untrue. Much soft science usually goes through a series of phases until accepted truth is agreed upon, and even then it is far from determinant.
The person I know isn’t ted haggard. He is male that once had sex with men, and now has sex with his female wife, this defines him as straight now, as far as he, his wife, their kids, and anyone else is concerned. The “scientific” definition of what he is of no consequence that he no longer has sex with men. He still loves them(as he does women), just doesn’t want to have sex with them.
So once again you claim that orientation is separate from sex. Now if I claim to be gay, but don’t have gay sex can I not then invoke special political privileges? Can I have my orientation speak for me as being discriminated against when dealing with problems with others not my orientation? What evidence could anyone provide that I wasn’t gay? How would you go about denying my right to be included in the gay community, as long as I say I am gay, aren’t I? Will you and yours investigate my life or take it on my word? Clearly this is all the “scientists” have been doing.
Glendon the defenses you come up with have all the character of *mumbo jumbo,
“the ability to give consent implies that one understands what one is consenting to; animals and children are incapable of such comprehension and therefore incapable of consent”. G; I would challenge you to prove this. You don’t know, that can be proven.
The arrogance of your position is that you claim to “know” someones orientation, despite them claiming otherwise. You go so far as to claim them in the closet if they live a life separate from what you consider their orientation. I would claim that orientation is changeable, not inborn, and you can choose to do what you want, any time you want, in your life and define yourself as that thing. That would be called FREEDOM.
What you describe Glendon is a sexual orthodoxy based on what the best current science can illuminate for us, and a bit fascistic.
*1. Unintelligible or incomprehensible language; gibberish.
2. Language or ritualistic activity intended to confuse.
3. A complicated or obscure ritual.
4. An object believed to have supernatural powers; a fetish.
December 11th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Glenn - So basically you know what believe is going to be disproved and you don’t care? You believe it anyway?
December 11th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
No Glendon; very simply what is being put forward as science is pretty weak, and in the current political climate dubious, so I am inclined to use my own instincts and intelligence in order to know what to think.
We disagree fundamentally on one thing, that orientation is defined by actions by me, and not by you, you are so to speak, gay, or not, a priori if I understand you correctly. I say that this falls into the category of belief. I don’t believe this, so my conclusions are different than yours.
My belief that orientation is chosen also allows for ability to change ones mind, and recreate themselves, at least within the mind, if not the body(that can now be arranged). It seems that your data disallows this to occur, am I not what I say I am? While I may believe that genetics comes into whether one becomes gay or not, expressly said, a person does not have to believe it.
If the physical acts of orientation are not required to be “gay” or “straight” from what you have written, then at that point I can simply say what I am at any given time, and you would have no reason to disbelieve me or refuse me my right to be that orientation at that time. Otherwise how would gay men be able to come out of the closet? This is their means.
What disturbs me most is that this very personal series of decisions has now been codified by the high priests of psychology to be true. That they intercede here with claimed science in what is entirely a personal matter is scary. Soon will we have to be analysed in order to determine whether we are truly gay or not?
If there is a buck in it we will.
December 11th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
I will concede (for the time being) that homosexual people are born with it. This may perhaps (in only my opinion, not my church’s teachings) be explained by choices they made in their pre-earth life.
I don’t know enough about it to say what I think for sure. But I do feel strongly that homosexuality in practice is wrong just like heterosexuality in practice outside the bonds of marriage is wrong. This can most ‘easily’ be explained by the claim that God says it is wrong, but there is much social evidence (disease, unwanted children, etc.) to support it being wrong as well.
Why would we not eventually provide legal sanction to homosexual unions if we have already sanctioned unmarried heterosexual relationships? For the record, I think we should sanction neither.
December 11th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
I am willing to allow any civil union within the boundary of sanity. Every person should have the right and the implied privileges of choosing a life partner, irrespective of the arrangement. Like I used to say in Vermont, “marry the fencepost, why would I care”? Wouldn’t go that far, but you get the idea.
The rest of the science, to bring to bear the human rights issue of it into play, is in my opinion a weak hand. Sticking with the idea that civil unions are a right of all people will get us much farther down the road. How can you impact people that don’t believe the science? It is side issue to me.
How do we currently sanction unmarried hetero relationships Frank? The deal out here is that you can be common law married pretty quickly automatically by co habitating. This would then apply to gay couples too I suppose, and gays can join in the joys of divorce and separation issues that plague those “officially” married.
Have gay couples tried to indemnify themselves to each other as partners?, rather like a partnership, with obligations, performance requirements, survivor benefits, all of this can be encompassed in the legal partnership arrangement. Partners like this can insure each other, though they likely would not be able to claim health benefits allowed to spouses if employees. Another reason for a single payer, not for profit health care system that covers EVERYONE, not tied to employment, or any other social relationship…,
other than the primary one of you and society.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Glenn,
You make my point when you write: “The deal out here is that you can be common law married pretty quickly automatically by co habitating. ”
Cohabitation is wrong, just as is the >>practice
December 11th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
…
Cohabitation is wrong, just as is the ==practice==of homosexuality.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Co habitation leads to common law marriage, so if you are a man and a woman, you can be defined as married for just living together. It is discriminatory really. People should be allowed to co-habitate(inhabit) without benefit of marriage if they want to. The state has no say in this or shouldn’t I might add.
I think in Colorado it is as short as 1 year or two of co habitation will get you where you may not want to be, married.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Then you must concede that the government has no say in whether homosexual couples should benefit from civil unions.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:54 am
Sure ‘enuf.
Yet here is where the issue gets clouded by language again. The state has to be involved in a civil union as its courts will be the arbiter of protecting those rights.
They have to create the right and uphold it, like they currently do with traditional marriage which has its civil component along with the religious vows, the civil portion being the only concern of the state.