I wish people wouldn't do this:
I’m betting Mr. du Toit is a closet case.
I am, as you might expect, not a big fan of the post she is denigrating. But the practice of claiming that people who make anti-gay remarks must be "closet cases" has to stop. First of all, it partakes, however slyly, of the notion that calling someone homosexual is a slur. Second, it's unlikely to be true; gay men (it's almost always said about men) are only about 3-5% of the population, and a lot of those are now out. The remaining closeted gay men are vastly outnumbered, unfortunately, by the number of men who are intensely uncomfortable being around other men who do not like to sleep with women, even if they are doing something that doesn't involve women at all. And third of all, it's a warmed-over remnant of 1970's pop-Freudianism, which is to serious psychology what Scientology is to science. The underlying theory of aversion formation makes no sense when applied to any other context--would anyone seriously entertain the notion that people who are uncomfortable around racial minorities secretly fear that they are black?
gay men (it's almost always said about men) are only about 3-5% of the population, and a lot of those are now out.
True enough in the general population... but among GOP/Christian career homophobes the numbers would seem to be much higher.
I find this annoying, too. It's dismaying sometimes, how similar schoolyard fights and national politics really are.
"Oh yeah? Takes one to know one!"
An awful legacy of psychology -- real psychology, not just "pop Freudianism" -- is that its constant delving for hidden, "subconscious" motives has made tu quoque respectable, which destroys argument. Aversion-formation is just a particularly absurd manifestation of the more general trend.
In my 9th grade sex ed class we watched a film about a group of teenaged boys. We knew going into the movie that it was about homosexuality. One of the kids was outwardly uninterested in girls, and was constantly teased by his buddies, and called a late-bloomer by some adult. Another boy, a jock who was at the forefront of the teasing and was pretty agressive in his flirtations with girls, was the one found to be gay (his buddies found some incriminatng magazines in his room).
So the lesson to the kids in the class, with an explicit refrain from the teacher after the viewing, was that boys who claim to be grossed out by gays and homosexual behavior are more likely to be gay than the boys who show no interest in girls.
Of course, this was the same class in which I was told that 10% of people are homosexual. So obviously facts weren't part of the curriculum.
I agree it's stupid to say "you protest too much, you must be gay."
However, I disagree with the notion that saying that someone who is anti-gay is gay is itself anti-gay. (Got that?) If you genuinely don't have aversion to homosexuality, what you are pointing out isn't that they are immoral, but that they are hypocritical, inconsistent or self-deluded.
While it may not be true, I suppose that telling teenagers that gay-bashers are actually more likely to be gay may be a way to get them to stop mistreating gays...
Unfortunately, calling someone gay is often a slur, deservedly so or not. It's also a way of dismissing someone's argument by attributing it to their self-hatred. Then you don't have to address the argument. And if they object to being called gay, you can accuse them of homophobia. It's a sort of "when did you stop beating your wife" thing mixed with an ad hominem.
EI
For my part, I wish people wouldn't claim that 3-5% of the population is "gay" while leaving "gay" undefined. My impression is that only 1-2% of the male population is attracted only to men; another 2-3% of the male population is attracted sometimes to men. Are both parts gay, or only the first? And if both parts are gay, is a member of the latter part (who is sometimes attracted to women) "closeted" if he fails to claim a gay identity?
I also wish you would clarify what is "unfortunate" about the fact that some men dislike public professions of homosexual desire when made by teammates, co-workers, platoon members, or what you will. I dislike most public professions of desire, but I especially dislike public professions of homosexual desire because try as I might to be "open-minded," I find the thought of homosexual acts between men rather icky. Is that unfortunate, and if so, why?
Freddie, if you're referring to Kim du Toit's article, I don't see anything in there that's hypocritical, incosistent, or self-deluded. You may disagree with him or find him repugnant, but he's fairly straight-forward and seems consistent.
I don't agree with everything he said, but he admits right up front that he's angry and his blog is for his angry writings. If you were expecting a balanced, fair essay, then you were in the wrong place. And after you read his original article, click on the Front Page and read the article entitled "Rehashed Outrage".
EI
seriously entertain the notion that people who are uncomfortable around racial minorities secretly fear that they are black?
nice... no, but I have seen supposedly straight men getting nervous by my good looks and claiming that I was gay. Why? Seriously, why are certain one-God sects sometimes uncomfortable around other one-God sects? In this case - they cannot be against religion per se? If they were atheists I could understand that...
No, seriously, why are people uncomfortable around racial minorities? It is obviously a lack of confidence and trust in oneself.
I have a theory. It is called general fear. When I read US media (not just journalists but comments) - it becomes quickly apparent that "fear" is being abused as a new recreational drug? What is wrong with a bit of alcohol or hemp? Watching Stephen King I can understand - but constantly pushing each other's fear up over nothing is quite tiresome?
God (Jesus was black and hence God too?), when Columbus crossed the sea - most people thought the world was flat (most people were religious and hence as smart as religion). Modern day people get homesick after leaving their country for days.. where are the Marco Polos? What is wrong with us? Anxiety pill are being sold by the tonnes...
Where are the people who do not believe that a strong adult should threaten children with violence and bluffing? Where are the heroes who believe that Jesus does not like torture?
Despite airplanes and the Internet we have become less cosmopolitan and confident than people were 2000 years ago! I hope that this time we do not start exporting it.
no the problem is NOT xenophobia.. you can leave xeno out of it. Mere phobia will do and is even worse!
Kudos to Hugo for not working vegetarianism or the evils of eating meat into his post. I kept waiting for it...
Perhaps he was afraid that a reference to "eating meat" would be misunderstood in a thread about homosexuality.
Freddie, if you're referring to Kim du Toit's article, I don't see anything in there that's hypocritical, incosistent, or self-deluded. You may disagree with him or find him repugnant, but he's fairly straight-forward and seems consistent.
You misunderstand me. In general, the charge that a homophobe is in fact gay doesn't, it seems to me, necessarily contain within it the idea that being called gay is a slur. It could be instead a charge that someone is hypocritical, inconsistent or self-deluded. So Kim du Toit's article only applies if we assume he's gay. Which, as I admitted above, is a stupid thing to assume.
I find the accusation in this case, as in most cases, to be unlikely. The guys who make you wonder are the ones who go on about how homosexuality is too tempting to resist, so therefore it can't be tolerated. They're usually preachers, rather than your run-of-the-mill hatemongers.
There is a fine line between calling someone gay as an insult, and accusing them of being a self-hating homosexual. The line is fine, but it does exist.
sam
Kudos to Hugo for not working vegetarianism or the evils of eating meat into his post. I kept waiting for it...
Einstein, Carl Sagan, Leonardo da Vinci, Gandhi (look them up on wikipedia) and others have claim that how we treat animals is at the root of all human evils. If we accepted animals for what they are - emotional individuals seeking to express autonomy and free will.. worthy no to be abused and exploited and tortured - we would have far less fear of foreign humans and we would restrict the freedoms of humans far less?
But it is sometimes fun to observe the sick leaves of the tree and to merely discuss the symptoms and not the cause at the roots?
Sometimes it is fun to look for the keys where there is light rather than where we have lost them. Not that it can change some of our predicaments but then again: I call discussing symptoms intellectual wanking and getting high - nothing wrong with this as long as you have real sex too and also have some sober moments?
BTW - I am also waiting for a democrat to only once in their life - try to tackle a problem without government controlled spending? I am also waiting for a Republican who understands why state and church are not the same and why fiscal control is as important as their text-books claim.
I am further desperately awaiting for a Democrat and a Republican to be born who understand the difference between positive and negative rights, and also the difference between laws and policies... Maybe one day - there will a politician who understand the difference between religion and ethics, and even one who knows the difference between a goal and a a journey?
I like this "wish-list" game!
Either way - the ONLY problem with homos and xenos is when you attach phobia to it. Tell me - what gets rid of general phobia (other than interventionist drugs)?
The underlying theory of aversion formation makes no sense when applied to any other context--would anyone seriously entertain the notion that people who are uncomfortable around racial minorities secretly fear that they are black?
It's early yet, but this is currently in the lead for "stupidest argument I read on the internet today".
Did I hear someone say Hitler was a vegetarian?
Jonah Goldberg's got a whole chapter on it in his new book.
Wow - Romaine!
What is your point?
Anyone that into vegetarianism is obviously a hunter.
would anyone seriously entertain the notion that people who are uncomfortable around racial minorities secretly fear that they are black?
To take this seriously... you've never heard of someone from a minority trying to visually "pass"? To prove they belong by avoiding that minority or parroting bad things to avoid seeming like "one of them"?
Some of the most vigorous anti-Semites are Jews themselves.
To answer the question at the basis of this post: It's because IT KEEPS HAPPENING. There have been a series of high-profile conservative men who harp, harp, harp on how awful gays are who turn out to have been closeted. The mayor of Spokane, that legislator in Florida, Ted Haggard, various Congressmen going back to the 1970s, and so on. The very religious and hygienically challenged student editor of the more right-wing periodical at Harvard produced and door-dropped an anti-gay themed issue in the early 1990s, guess what, after college he turned out to be gay. It is a pattern and it doesn't apply to everyone who harps on this issue, but you can't assume that being obsessed with the evil of gays is a normal pose for a straight person to have.
Lots of straight people are uncomfortable with gay sex, that's fine, it's the ones who dwell on it or harp on it who have some reason to do so that just ain't right. It may be that they're closeted, it may be that they're challenged in some other way (no success with women, etc.) and have to prove how masculine they are, who knows. Being in the closet is one of those reasons.
Hugo said:
God (Jesus was black and hence God too?), when Columbus crossed the sea - most people thought the world was flat (most people were religious and hence as smart as religion).
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! People did not believe this (this is a pet peeve of mine, bear with me).
Google "Flat Earth Myth". You'll find plenty of references. Here's the top result:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods46.html
I found the rest of Hugo's rant to be as illuminating.
Brittian33, that's availability bias. You remember a few people who publicly proclaimed their antipathy to homosexuals and turned out to be gay much more vividly than the many who were as straight as the day is long . . .
Brittain,
If only vocal hatred of homosexuality were limited to the handful of men you have mentioned! Regrettably, this is not the case - survey data suggest that anti-gay attitudes are relatively common. If even a small percentage of the people expressing those views are gay - 1-4%, say - this will result in a large number of anecdote cases.
Yes, there are jewish anti-semites . . . but they are vastly outnumbered by anti-semites who aren't jews. To put it another way - if you learned that someone hated jews, and you knew nothing else about them, would you assume that they were jewish? Similarly, the relatively small number of homosexual gay-bashers is positively dwarfed by the straights holding those same views.
Brittian33, that's availability bias. You remember a few people who publicly proclaimed their antipathy to homosexuals and turned out to be gay much more vividly than the many who were as straight as the day is long . . .
Megan, you've asserted that there's no correlation between the two, and have provided no more data than I have. Perhaps less, because at least I can name the group of men at the center of the Venn diagram, while you can only mention "the many who were as straight as the day is long . . ." (which requires proving a negative, since we only hear about the subset of the closet cases who get caught, but never mind.)
I'm going out on a limb here and will argue that conclusive data aren't widely available, and we'll have to settle with the anecdotal evidence of a bunch of high-profile cases to provide some color. But let's set that aside.
It's quite clear that denial, often vocal, is a successful defense mechanism for men who find they are gay and don't know how to deal with it. If they are gay and conservative, they have a belief system that readily validates their choice to pretend that they're not gay and that no one should be gay. And if I'd given up my chance at happiness because I feel it's what I'm supposed to do, you can bet I'll be resentful and jealous of the men who are able to make it work. Maybe I'll convince myself they're all unhappy, maybe as unhappy as I am but without the comforts of faith, or if not that, they're all drunks or child molesters and they'll get AIDS and die young, while at least I have my health and my standing in the community.
Megan, you've never been a closeted gay man, you don't know what the experience is like or how terrifying it can be to worry about people finding out and having your life be over. Someone like Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, or Jon Hinson (I recommend you google him if you want to talk about this subject) had no idea how to be a gay man and be respectable so they stayed closeted. It drives people to do things that may not seem rational to you to a) avoid coming under suspicion and b) justify their life choices to themselves. Many of them find their way into conservative politics because they've spent their whole lives lying about who they are and denying themselves happiness to please others, so it's a natural extension of those skills. I'm not being remotely sarcastic; it's called the "best little boy in the world" syndrome.
Normal straight people with decent dating lives above the mental age of 15 don't have anything to prove. They don't have to justify their choices to themselves or others, because they never made a choice not to be gay. They're often not worried about people worrying they might be gay, because they aren't and likely have the evidence to prove it. They're not looking to loudly pass judgment on people they likely pity instead of hating, or who they just find weird.
I hope this helps explain why this label, as much as it annoys you, has a basis in the human experience.
TWL, anti-gay attitudes are common, but as with other views that are borderline inappropriate in big fora, most people don't broadcast them or make a career out of them.
Here's a recent example of a national Young Republican leader not dealing with his sexuality, and ultimately having it blow up as a scandal.
http://www.towleroad.com/2007/08/gop-rising-star.html
Does this story really seem like an aberration to you, something that could happen randomly to anyone? Not related at all to the type of unusual self-denial and drive that would lead someone to the head of a conservative political group while his friends were actually enjoying their lives?
Brittain,
I hope that aren't trying to claim that everyone who is as vocally anti-gay as Larry Craig is a closeted homosexual - that would be virtually every Republican in congress, and a number of the Democrats. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most Republican congressman aren't gay.
I still think that you're ignoring the reality that, in a vacuum, we should expect there to be a reasonable number of anti-gay homosexuals, as a simple result of the law of large numbers.
And I also think that you're taking this "something to prove" argument too far. It can explain some anti-gay rhetoric, but again, there are a lot of people who are vocally, angrily racist, or vocally, angrily anti-semetic . . . what are they trying to prove? And frankly, gay-bashing is pretty low-cost in a lot settings . . . isn't it possible that some people just hate gays?
Brittain,
How many Young Republican (and similar orginization) leaders have there been? Are you claiming that all of them were gay? That seems . . . totally unreasonable.
Half Canadian,
Are you saying that at the time of Columbus the majority of people (majority of Christians) did not believe that the earth was flat? Are you saying that the official position of the church and the Vatican at the time did not state that the earth was flat?
I am certain that some Christians, like Columbus himself, were up for testing the status quo. I am certain that some Christians today believe in evolution and reject creationism as science. Creationism is mythology to them and as such a myth - they concentrate on the spiritual aspects of unity. If what you are saying is hence that science and religion are different things - I am with you and do not see our disagreement!?
Coming back to the topic at hand: There is nothing wrong, I think, to counter some insecure accusations. I.e. somebody accuses you of being gay out of the blue. Countering that it is interesting to note who has brought this up in the first place is only fair?
Ancient Greeks, who were sexually quite open, apparently didn't even have a word for "gay". This in itself is interesting as we owe them so many of our modern words and meanings?
This reminds me of the revelation that Matthew Shepard's killers weren't actually acting on homophobic rage, but rather on run-of-the-mill intoxication and malevolent stupidity. It seems they realized that homophobia would be much more plausible for people to understand as a motive, and thus a more viable defensive strategy (the gay-panic defense).
Btw, I have a real 'thing' against people who are gay, but living a straight life, or worse, obnxiously opposed to homosexuality. The most offensive thing for me to read are the M4M personals on craigslist in which guys are looking for discreet one-time hook-ups. It makes me want to puke when I think of their wives/girlfriends being unknowingly exposed to STDs because these guys don't have the balls to be out (and proud).
but again, there are a lot of people who are vocally, angrily racist, or vocally, angrily anti-semetic . . . what are they trying to prove?
They want to prove that they belong, that they're part of the majority and part of the "good" group.
You responded to my comments about anti-Semitism above. Vladimir Zhirinovsky was Russia's most notorious anti-Semite in the 1990s who led a xenophobic and racist political party. He later announced he had Jewish ancestry. Adolf Hitler's grandmother worked for a Jewish family and her child was rumored, quite viciously, to be the illegitimate child of her employer. This was a source of embarrassment to him, and have you ever looked at a picture of Hitler or Goebbels compared to their German ideal?
No, not every person who specializes in gay-bashing rhetoric is a closeted gay man. I never claimed that. However, I reject the counter claim that there's no correlation AT ALL, and that many closeted men don't find that a congenial life path for the reasons I spelled out above. I've taken enough space on this thread that I won't restate my arguments.
Are you claiming that all of them were gay?
No. I'm going to claim it's more than 3-5%, though.
And to address your likely response to my 1:56 PM post; obviously not all Nazis and Russian fascists are crypto-Jews, and the proportion is almost certainly less than in the general population because hiding Jewish ancestry is a lot harder than hiding being gay.
There are lots of varieties of losers who are drawn to movements like that, and this is one of them. The racism is a tangent from this argument though, and I got into it because of Megan's original bafflement about this dynamic as applied (badly) to race.
First of all, it partakes, however slyly, of the notion that calling someone homosexual is a slur.
I'm going to have to disagree with this. It plays off the notion that the person you are talking to or about thinks calling someone homosexual is a slur.
Let's say you 'accuse' me of being gay. I am going to reply that no, in fact, I'm not but thanks for asking. It's no different than if you 'accuse' me of being left-handed (which I am: Anyone got a problem with that??). So, you see, ridiculously well-adjusted and secure people such as myself don't really conceive of it as a slur.
But if I tell Pat Buchanan, for example, that he dost protest too much about the gays, and he turns beet-red and starts spraying me with hate-spittle, it's a reflection of his problem. I'm not slurring him. His twisted thought process has interpreted the comment as a slur.
"No. I'm going to claim it's more than 3-5%, though."
Throwing out the anomalies, I'd say people who aren't as gay friendly as others are less likely to be gay. No psycho-babble needed.
It makes me want to puke when I think of their wives/girlfriends being unknowingly exposed to STDs because these guys don't have the balls to be out (and proud).
Your compassion for people living in a society that continues to degrade and ridicule gay men is inspiring. I would suggest also that, whatever the relative rates of STD infection of gay men compared to straight, a man can easily pass an STD on to his spouse or girlfriend that he contracted from another woman. (Although, it's true, it is very unlikely for HIV specifically to be transmitted this way.)
Throwing out the anomalies, I'd say people who aren't as gay friendly as others are less likely to be gay. No psycho-babble needed.
Uh, apparently no argument of any kind needed.
Britain33, you are taking a highly publicised sample and attributing it some sort of statistical meaning. That is a classic availability bias. We have no way of knowing wether you are right or wrong, but the vividness of the stories is not actual information..
Half Canadian, Hugo is a performance artist. He attempts to tie everything into the evils of eating meat and mistreating animals (i.e. treating them like animals).
EI
Your compassion for people living in a society that continues to degrade and ridicule gay men is inspiring.
Well, while that may be the case, the women who get dragged along for the ride are real victims and the men bear some responsibility for what they do.
Christina's comments are similar to the most common reaction of women friends of mine to Brokeback Mountain. They identified with the wives.
Perhaps that's the only way to end the pressure to stay closeted. People need to realize that they're asking some percentage of their daughters to "take one for the team."
EI,
it is called the lowest common denominator?
The things that unite us all are not religion, color, sexual orientation, IQ, money, or other cultural preferences but nature. Once you start thinking about what unites all humans - you will realize that it also applies to animals.
Then you reach the same conclusion as Albert Einstein, Albert Schweitzer, Carl Sagan, Leonardo Da Vinci, Socrates, etc... that as long as we discriminate and abuse animals - we will discriminate
and abuse other humans. How should a healthy flower grow without healthy soil? Clint Eastwood for president, I've said it before!
It is almost impossible to discuss homophobia without mentioning the gay penguins in the NY zoo?
I am, as you might expect, not a big fan of the post she is denigrating.
Two points: 1) The original highclearing response was about how masculinity can affect judgment wrt foreign policy. A common idea floating around liberal blogs is the idea that a lot of neocons are not physically strong or aggressive and du Toit's post is an example of trying to compensate through advocating aggressive policies (emulating, say, Jack Bauer). I'd be interested in what a female conservative thinks about that, rather than just pointing out the criticism was cruder than necessary.
2) du Toit denigrates liberals for being soft on national security (diplomacy, cutting deals, etc.). I get the feeling reading du Toit that du Toit would not have cared if strong evidence had been presented in 2002 that Hussein did not have nuclear or biological weapons and that he had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 was an outage that demanded retaliation, and Hussein was a convenient target. Diplomacy and coalition-building are for wimps. Does Megan still feel invading Iraq was a good way to deal with Islamic terrorism? Has our experience in Iraq tempered Megan's attitude towards using force in foreign policy?
I believe that getting rid of Saddam and building a democracy in his place is still the right thing to do. 9/11 was never a justification for the Iraq war. The presence of WMD was only one of many reasons for the war. Most of the reasons are still valid.
Diplomacy where you let your opponents walk all over you (see Palestinian Peace Process) is for wimps. But that doesn't mean that liberals are gay. Not that there'd be anything wrong with that...
EI
Are you saying that the official position of the church and the Vatican at the time did not state that the earth was flat?
A keeper! We have Hugo on record as defending a claim that anybody with the slightest knowledge of history would know is false.
I thought it was hilarious how the media inflated the importance of Ted Haggard when he was caught in his gay-sex scandal. I'd never heard of him before, and thought headlines along the lines of "Haggard Caught in Gay Scandal" were utterly misleading. The only Haggard in America famous enough to be referred to by his last name alone is Merle Haggard, and aging country-music stars are seldom caught in gay scandals.
Joseph,
I am not sure what you are referring to? Here the rest of my post again:
The most offensive thing for me to read are the M4M personals on craigslist in which guys are looking for discreet one-time hook-ups. It makes me want to puke when I think of their wives/girlfriends being unknowingly exposed to STDs because these guys don't have the balls to be out (and proud).
Christina, your anger is misdirected. That isn't about Bad Old Homophobic Culture with these guys being victims... they are CHEATING. And if the women in their lives have no clue, then they are bisexual. The problem is not "gay" its philandering.
You might as well say pressure to be monogamous causes these poor guys to go out for discreet hookups.
The problem is not "gay" its philandering.
Exactly so.
No. I'm going to claim it's more than 3-5%, though.
I don't see what the basis of that claim is. Under the 3-5% figure we would expect, on the Republican side, a couple of gay senators, a dozen Representatives, hundreds of state legislators, a governor, and dozens of religious figures of at least regional importance. Add up all the Republican "gay scandals" of the last five years and you're still nowhere near those numbers.
I'd be interested in what a female conservative thinks about that, rather than just pointing out the criticism was cruder than necessary.
Whenever I read a leftist using the "overcompensation" argument vis a vis non-leftist male writers, I give it the same consideration I do the argument against female writers that assert "penis envy".
EI says:
I believe that getting rid of Saddam and building a democracy in his place is still the right thing to do. 9/11 was never a justification for the Iraq war. The presence of WMD was only one of many reasons for the war. Most of the reasons are still valid.
The current cost of Iraq is about 1,000 troops killed per year about plus 7-8,000 seriously wounded, and about $3,000,000 per week down the rat hole. What are we getting that makes all that worthwhile?
The important about nuclear and biological weapons is that Hussein did not have them. The government of Saddam Hussein was stable, served as a counterweight to Iran, and was a much more anti-terrorist than what is there now. What are the reasons for invading Iraq that are still valid? Securing Iraq's oil? Given all the mistakes this administration has made, why do you think they should be trusted with determining Iraq's future?
Diplomacy where you let your opponents walk all over you (see Palestinian Peace Process) is for wimps. But that doesn't mean that liberals are gay. Not that there'd be anything wrong with that...
Where did I talk about letting someone walk all over someone? I'm talking about the kind of coalition-building and diplomacy that George H. W. Bush pulled off so masterfully in the first Gulf War. Why wasn't his son able to match that?
Hugo,
I'm an atheist, and certainly of the opinion that Christians have believed a great many silly things over the years.
However, the notion that most Europeans in Columbus' time thought the world was flat is simply a myth. The Church had, by that point, accepted the idea of a spherical earth for over a thousand years. The opposition to Columbus' voyage came not from a superstitious belief that the Earth was flat, but from the *scientific* belief that the Earth was much larger than Columbus thought, and that he would run out of provisions long before reaching the Far East.
It is important to remember that Columbus wasn't looking for America. He just got lucky; had America not been here he'd have died on his way to Asia.
Dan,
Do you understand that I am aware that Columbus himself, a Christian(?), believed that the earth was spherical? I further believe that most sailors or navigators, believed the earth to be spherical.
But I do not believe that the majority of people believed it was spherical... I understand that the earth as a sphere theory has been proven before Christ. But it is something else what the common view of people and theologians was - and what some scientists and sailors were thinking.
I also understand that Columbus was not struggling to find support for his travels based on the the earth-flat-myth. After all - he was not an evolution teacher living in the bible belt ;-)
I used Columbus and Marco Polo as an example for courage to deal with foreign nations and cultures (and I am aware he was seeking India and failed to calculate the distance right). I further made claim as to how strange it is that followers of Christ support torture. Please scroll up and read up on it.
People like EI & Co pick on certain sentences and take them out of context in order to distract from some questions I pose.
But since we are at it.. I find the story of Copernicus much better:
Back to the topic at hand and as I have said before: It is almost impossible to discuss homophobia without mentioning the gay penguins in the NY zoo?
I can understand how a creationist might accept homosexuality (God made it, so it is good), but I have been unable to reconcile how an evolutionist might accept it. It would seem to be an evolutionary dead-end, not that there is anything wrong with that.
to m
I believe that evolutionists (as you call them) reject the idea that every existing gene today is evolutionarily "perfect" so to speak (indeed if this was the case I wouldn't need glasses, no one would have birth defects, and evolution would have effectively ceased).
Assuming that homosexuality has a strong genetic component (which I believe), it wouldn't mean that those genes were destined to die out provided that enough societal pressure existed to compel homosexuals to "fake it" and procreate anyway. Indeed this still happens today in (relatively) tolerant America. I theorize that the main reason for religion's typical disdain for homosexuality was rooted in how crucial birth rates were for the survival of tribes that depended on manpower to work the fields and fight wars; the goal being to force homosexuals to marry and have kids against their own desires.
Before I get flamed, I'm an atheist with no problem whatsoever with homosexuality (it's not a choice) and this is just my own personal pet theory. I'm not an expert nor do I claim to be.
But I do not believe that the majority of people believed it was spherical.
You're welcome to believe whatever you want. It is nevertheless the case that the best evidence we have is that it was widely accepted that the Earth was a sphere. The church knew it, educated people knew it, sailors knew it, as did anyone who traveled extensively. Did uneducated peasant farmers know it? We don't really know, since they couldn't write and few people cared what they thought about cosmology. But I would expect, in a world in which the powers that be thought the world was a sphere, that knowledge would trickle down to the peasantry, too. It isn't like we're born thinking the world is flat, after all.
I find the story of Copernicus much better
I'm not sure what the relevance of Copernicus is. The question of whether the Earth goes around the Sun or vice-versa is unrelated to the question of whether or not the Earth is a sphere.
I further made claim as to how strange it is that followers of Christ support torture
I don't care about that topic.
It is almost impossible to discuss homophobia without mentioning the gay penguins in the NY zoo?
I would suggest that anyone who points to the existence of homosexual animals as proof of something should pause to consider that rape and incest even more common in the animal kingdom than homosexual activity is. A person with more than sixty seconds of training as a Christian theologian would doubtless be quick to point out that God doesn't intend for humans to live like animals.
I don't think there's anything the least bit wrong with homosexuality, mind you -- but the "animals do it" argument is still morally and theologically ridiculous.
I have been unable to reconcile how an evolutionist might accept it. It would seem to be an evolutionary dead-end, not that there is anything wrong with that.
For the past thousand generations or so (and probably earlier than that, but our records don't go back that far) humans have faced strong social incentives to marry and produce children, regardless of sexual urges. If a "gay gene" arose during that time it would have had little effect; a gay man would still father children to work his fields and so on, he just wouldn't much enjoy the act of fathering them. If the "gay gene" is simple and negative then it will simply die out once the pressure on gay men live as heterosexuals dies out. That's Explanation #1.
Explanation #2 would be that homosexuality could be a side effect of the combination of other genes that have beneficial aspects individually. If, for example, there are 6 genes, each possessed by about half of people, each beneficial individually, but which cause homosexuality when one person has all 6, then 30 people would be getting genetic benefits for every one gay person produced by the unlucky combination of all six genes.
Explanation #3 is that homosexuality is might be a congenital "defect" with no direct genetic component. This is probably not the case.
Explanation #4 is that it might be a genetic trait triggered by environmental effects, as a population control measure or for some other reason (for example, many animals become less fertile in crowded environments).
Explanation #5 is that it might be a trait which normally has positive effects but which in rare cases has the opposite effect. For example, it might normally cause men to be more sexually attracted to women, but in rare cases (possibly those of #2 or #3) cause the possessor of the trait to be unusually uninterested in women.
There are many more possibilities, but those are a few of the more obvious ones.
Dan
If you had read the penguin article and a book on bonobos - you would know that sex is just fun. In other words - it is as much of a dead-end as pleasure itself. Literally a dead-end as it is part of the reason d'etre? If you prefer mixed doubles or singles - does not matter.
Yes - homosexuality is natural as it can be found in all kinds of animals and has existed long before the first book was written and long before we created God. And there is a big difference between killing and raping somebody (like chimps) or simply having orgies (like bonobos). One violates individual negative rights and the other one does not.
Mind you that the modern church is less open to sex than it is to violence. ie Church complains about certain words and nudity but not about guns, etc. This is sick!
The church should teach love and tolerance for everybody and not prohibition of sex and fun (does not matter with whom). Christians should not discrimination against those who look like Christ? (How did the Christian Knights of the KKK explain their faith again?) The church has no business in many areas such as science. And yet even today - many centuries after Columbus, Copernicus and Galileo - it has some beef with Darwin and evolution? Why? It is a spiritual tool. As such it could fulfill an important role - why water it down by mixing it up? Why throw the baby out with the bath water?
And tell me - why do you not care about torture and individual rights - but do care about homosexuality? What point is there in Christianity when the most religious support torture the most? Once I understand this - i might understand what the church's problem is with non-religious(!) same sex marriage? The gay penguins in the NY zoo were allowed to raise a child together and did so successfully.. kudos to them. shame on the church!
As the issue of the flat earth has been ably dealt with, I'll drop it.
However, on the issue of gay penguins, why don't people bring up the fact that one of them went straight? Silo left Roy for a girl.
But that can't EVER happen with humans.
So, I'll leave with that ox gored.
If Kim Dutoit is gay, he's sure got his wife fooled. Either that, or he's got a whole lot of sock puppets pretending to be his wife and friends that have met her and their children. Considering how many people welcome him like a skunk at a perfumers convention, I rather think he'd have been exposed if that was going on.
Nor is the essay referred to homophobic in any way. I think Kim would be just fine with a manly homosexual. Nor does he hate unmanly ones in themselves, it's the notion he sees in some parts of our culture that manliness is wrong that sets him off.
You said it, marky mark. No homosexual could pass as straight by marrying a woman and having kids.
Perhaps we could meet to discuss the threat to masculine heterosexuality posed by liberal bloggers. Have you ever been the Hollywood Erotic Boutique in Spokane?
Hugo. Let me type this really slowly:
Christians. Don't. Support. Torture.
There. Read that. Keep saying the opposite just because you have Bush Derangement Syndrome and think that all Rethuglicans worship Chimpy McBusHitler and are fanatic fundamentalist Christians who all want to torture brown people.
Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.
EI
Of course, the real Larry Craig knows that he doesn't actually have any children of his own: his three were adopted after he married their mother.
You confuse some categories. By gay we tend to mean people whose primary sexual attraction is to the same sex. But even some of them can have some heterosexual attractions. While the number of men who are exclusively gay is in the range you speak about the number of men who have some homosexual attractions are much higher.
Studies have been done of men who do not identify as gay at all. They are show sexually erotic photos of men and women separately and the dilation of the pupils of the eye is measure for each one. The wider the pupil the greater the interest. It is an involuntary reaction. What they found was that among men who say they are straight that those who expressed the most vociferous dislike for homosexuals were also the ones with the widest pupils when it came to male erotica.
True such men are not homosexuals in the sense of that they are exclusive attracted to men. But they do have a stronger homosexual component than other straight men.
So it is true that most virulently homophobic men are not gay in the sense of having exclusive or predominately same-sex attractions. But it can also be true that they are more likely to be interested in same sex activity than other straight men.
Is this a slur? I don’t think so. If it is a statement of fact it is a statement of fact. It doesn’t mean that being gay is wrong. It merely means that some people who believe it is wrong are reacting to things in themselves that they don’t like. It doesn’t mean their perceptions about it being wrong are correct just that they screwed themselves up.
Yes - homosexuality is natural as it can be found in all kinds of animals and has existed long before the first book was written and long before we created God.
Rape, murder, incest, and cannibalism are all natural, are found in all kinds of animals, and have existed since long before humans even evolved, let alone wrote religious texts. Like I said before, the notion that "it is natural" equates to "it is good" is morally and theologically ridiculous. There are plenty of great reasons why there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, but "animals do it" and "it exists in nature" are quite definitely NOT among them.
And tell me - why do you not care about torture and individual rights - but do care about homosexuality?
You're confused. I'm correcting the errors in your reasoning because as an atheist I get really annoyed when other atheists make theologically incoherent arguments against Christianity. It makes me look bad by association. That's the only reason I responded to you -- to correct the mistakes you made in your arguments about homosexuality.
Torture and individual rights are quite interesting subjects, but I've no reason to think you're going to say anything interesting about them -- hence, my lack of interest in discussing them with you.
Once I understand this - i might understand what the church's problem is with non-religious(!) same sex marriage?
That's an easy one. God said that homosexuality is wrong, therefore Christians should believe that homosexuality is wrong. The Bible is much less clear where torture is concerned, especially if it is done in order to save innocents.
The animal kingdom has the aforementioned rape (including "sword-fighting" worms that stab each other with their penises, oh boy) and incest (what's more incestuous than hermaphroditism), it's also got gay necrophilia (http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1432991,00.html) but what else does it have?
Carnivores.