October 19, 2004

• ... I'm feeling queasy... Excuse my ignorance, please. Being an East Coaster, in New England nonetheless, I wanted to know if this is really how the majority of people feel that live in these states? Is there that much hate fomenting among citizens?
• Considering I had a conversation last week about whether or not heterosexuals can get AIDS... I'd say it's the stagnant water for those hate mosquitos.
• I'm so very sick and tired of these tongue-speaking, world-harvesting zealots telling me that I'm hell-bound that I'm starting to hate just as irrationally as they do, and that's not where I wanna go. Twenty years ago, with one friend or another dying from AIDS every week or two, I was angry and even outraged at the lack of concern shown by the Reagan administration while it pandered to a budding evangelical movement whose members were in no perceptible danger. And yet I didn't cross the bridge to hatred. I raised my voice, but tried to believe that the ignorance of the evangelicals was accidental and mutable. Now, with this movement fully enmeshed in American government, having worked its way up through the ranks from school boards to higher positions at the behest of groups like the Christian Coalition, it's clear that no appeal to logic, decency, or constitutionality will make any difference to the force of their destructive trajectory. Nor is it at all accidental. These are people who've turned reality -- and even Christian mythology -- on its head, who seek to do real harm to others as pre-emptive redress for imagined harms that they think will befall them if they don't. They keep on shrieking that to allow basic rights to gay people will be the downfall of civilization while all along it's their own destructive way of living -- violent, ultra-competitive, anti-environmental, radically conservative, economically unsustainable, suspicious, hateful, xenophobic, and downright un-Christian -- that continues to cause a steep decline in the actual, intangible quality of American life. And after all these years, I'm really coming to hate them as much as they've hated me. And I hate that.
• Even otherwise intelligent people who happen to belong to churches that condemn homosexuality seem to take this issue surprisingly seriously. The line usually goes something like "I have gay friends. [Editorial note: living in Toronto this is pretty much inevitable.] I don't hate homosexuals, but homosexuality is a sin. They should practise abstinence." I really don't get why it's such a polarizing issue. The Bible condemns all kinds of weird things including women's rights and adulary that became commonplace decades ago. Can people who object to homosexaulity not just, you know, be a little freaked out by it and then get over it eventually?
• And after all these years, I'm really coming to hate them as much as they've hated me. And I hate that. I know exactly how you feel. That's the worst part of it for me. I feel my own anger and frustration at them gradually rise into rage, and then white-hot hatred -- I've even entertained a dark fantasy or two -- when suddenly it hits me that I'm turning into their Bizarro counterpart. I don't like slimy residue of that realization.
• Damn, this article makes me want to cry. Damn, damn, damn. Calimehtar, in answer to your question, having "debated" some of these nuts online, I seriously doubt it (at least not without some serious therapy). I'm not saying I understand why it is such a polarizing issue either but these strong objections seem to come from a seriously irrational place within these people. Hence the term "phobic"...
• There are a great many of us on the Right that deplore any sort of discrimination or (especially) violence against homosexuals, on the grounds of individual liberty, and the law backs that position (violence against anyone, after all, is a crime). The Right does not have a position against homosexuals, any more than the Left has a position against being a born-again Christian. *People* hold those opinions and, occasionally, act on them, not political parties. Since the Bible does actually and quite specifically proscribe against homosexuality, I think homosexuals will have a hard time convincing serious Christians that homosexuality isn't wrong. However, lawfully speaking, homosexuals should - and will, where localized incidents currently exemplify otherwise - have equal rights, privileges and responsibilities allowed any citizen. Whatever one's personal belief regarding homosexuality, the law presupposes full legal equality for everyone.
• To add: if the Republican Party overtly supports the villification and denial of rights to a segment of the citizenry, then I do not support the Republican Party.
• But, Fes, I think that part of the issue here is that for both major parties in the U.S., we've effectively gotten a parliamentary system in all but name. So the GOP has become a bit of a coalition of what would under a parliamentiary system be a Religious Right Party, a Fiscal Conservative Party, and even voters who might be more comfortable with the Libertarian Party, which actually does exist after all. And just as can happen in a parliamentary system, a minority member has in some matters taken control. And, as your second comment points out, even a "big tent" can only stretch within limits before some people begin to look for the exit.
• I concur. I just don't believe that everyone who votes Republican believes that homosexuals should be ostracized or attacked. Some do, certainly. But I would venture that most do not. When someone says "the Right does this" or "the Right does that," I think that does a disservice to those reasonable people who hold conservative views and believe that what an adult does in their bedroom is their own business and no one elses.
• Man, that article just makes me all kinds of sick and pissed off. This preacher comes across as a man bent on gaining power over his congregation, rather than a true man of God. It's sad that the people he "leads" are being led to a very bad place. What's next, public brownshirt rallies or the equivalent thereof? Hetero uber alles? The most frustrating thing is that I'm one person, who does genuinely give a damn about all of this, and it seems like there is nothing I can do to stop this sort of bullshit.
• Worth keeping in mind, Fes, completely. But the Republican party does tend to court the religious right, which seems to be the epicenter of homophobic bigotry, fairly loudly and publicly. (No, I'm not saying that most religious conservatives are homophobes, but I don't think it's controversial to say that most homophobes are religious conservatives.) Our current president is a walking, breathing example of that courtship. And maybe I'm not listening to the right voices, but I don't exactly hear vigorous denunciations of this kind of rhetoric coming from the GOP. (There's not much coming from the Church, either, which, as a Christian, I find horribly shameful.) But add to that the "marriage amendment" crusade and the campaigns to keep sodomy illegal in several states, and well...part of that wound looks to be self inflicted, IMHO. The GOP seems to be taking a firm stance that they're not really fond of equal rights and protections for homosexuals.
• Would you believe I know more people who would classify themselves as liberal or libertarian that are "homophobic" than I know who conservatives? Seriously, my father's side of the family is almost all liberal, yet to hear them talk about homosexuals, you'd think you were at a Fred Phelps rally. Many of the students at my school who are Democrats, think nothing of mocking gays when they're among people they think are all hetero. Counterpoint that with my church, which granted is far more centrist than most non-denominational churches, but still is predominately conservative and right-wing. We had a series our pastors did called "The Hate Series", where they confronted the divide between evangelical Christians and the homosexual community, especially making a point to invite the LGBTA to our services - a number of whom actually attended. It was a valuable time where we all tried to evaluate just how we might "get along" without compromising our particular beliefs. On the whole, a far more "tolerant" showing than what I've seen from many of my liberal acquaintances. All that to say, the Right wing certainly does have the image of being homophobic, etc, but I've found there is far from a monopoly there, and to a certain extent, many of us are actually quite against the discrimination and hatred that this article addresses.
• Yes, I am surprised by that.
• I'm not, mct. Eric S Raymond, for example, is a hero to slashdot libertarians, and is about as revoltingly homophobic as can be.
• Isn't that, you know, anti-libertarian, to condemn people for living how they choose?
• Fes: Senator who compares Homosexual sex to incest keeps job "Give me one example that proves evolution. One example! You can't." Bible Banned!!!! Now if can tell me that these acts are not overtly supporting the villification and denial of rights to a segment of the citizenry, then I do not know what is. So perhaps the Republicans don't quite fit your description of the "right". Perhaps you should examine the various position of the Democratic party as fulfilling many of the various "Right"-like qualities you previously described. I mean this is a totally serious non-snarky sort of way. On preview: Yes, alot of other politicans are homophobic, alot of liberals are, alot of libertarians are. Heck a whole lotta people are homophobic. The stricking difference, however, is that one party openly and actively courts, supports, and promugates homophobia and the homophobic vote. Whether they are right or left or up or down is irrelevant. The problem lies in the semantic boondoggle that is the right/Republican left/Democrat identification. Frankly Kerry's ambivalence on this issue disgusts me, but then I must choose the lesser of two evils.
• f8xmulder I'm not all that surprised, in my experience, homophobia follows no political lines. Witness (from the recent Mary Cheney kerfuffle) how many liberal media commentators seem to think that lesbian is a pejorative term. However, that said, I think it is understandable (if not entirely accurate) that the Repubs are tarred with the homophobic brush, given the proposal of the FMA by the current federal administration. Its legislation like this that makes me worry that the current incarnation of the Republican party may be in danger of being hijacked by an overy simplistic "anti-gay agenda". In that respect, I'm glad to see that some Repubs in Ohio are fighting the Issue 1 initiative. P.S. Kudos to your church, sounds like a great place. P.P.S. I hope you told those liberal friends of your's off.
• middleclasstool No, no, libertarians are mostly insistent that you can't tell *them* what to do. In my experience, some can be quite vocal about how you and I should run our lives. And yes, it doesn't make much sense to me.
• 'Faggot'.
• blogRot: Let me know when that is the official Democratic party policy ok? Or when the Democrats start sending out fliers that are even are remotely problematic as the bible banned one... Or when Jerry Falwell is Tom Daschle's right hand man. Or when Reverend Moon gets Hangs out with leaders of the democratic party For a little perspective on Sugar Daddies. And the supremely surreal Coronation.
• mct: There's always some convoluted definition of "harm" you can come up with to justify it. Hence, Raymond can justify his hatred of Islam and boy-on-boy action as being somehow more harmful to others than, say, his own religion and advocacy for polygamy.
• Yes, because nothing is more harmful than hot buttery man-love. Sometimes I don't get people. And I didn't know that about Raymond. This is supposed to be Mr. Freedom of all Softwaredom. *sigh*
• When someone says "the Right does this" or "the Right does that," I think that does a disservice to those reasonable people who hold conservative views and believe that what an adult does in their bedroom is their own business and no one elses. The problem, Fez, is that those "reasonable" folks you're referring are not at the helm of the Right, and the machinery of the Right is currently grinding away at people who do not fit the mold. Therefore, the Right, advertising itself as one, big, inclusive "tent" is indeed the party of bigotry and hatred, whether its more "reasonable" constituents agree or disagree with the core platform of the Right. And, granted, the Right does not hold a monopoly on bigotry (as hard as they try). But they are in power, they are making the rules (even without a popular mandate), and so they must be held accountable for their mostly hate-filled activities and predilections. Arguing reducio ad absurdum that a few "liberals" are doing the same thing is not a reasonable comparison by any means. When the Right says that fags should be killed for violating Scripture then a line has been crossed. The representatives of the Right must be held accountable for things they say because they control the direction of policy for their party. It would be a welcome change if moderate Republicans -- such as they exist, if they are the majority of the Right, which seems to be your claim -- would stand up and vocally right these repeated wrongs. That doesn't happen, and until it does, I refuse to give right-leaning people any pass whatsoever on this issue. The silence is not only deafening but growing more dangerous each and every day.
• How can people embrace a call for a return to the laws of Leviticus while pegging Muslim fundamentalists as evildoers?
• Not to fling poo here, but... The article does not match the Alex's posting that "the Right" wants to execute homosexuals. I am the Right as much as anyone--I have voted Republican most of my life, have pictures of Reagan in my office, think the government is too damn big and invasive. I also support full civil rights for homosexuals, including the right to marriage. This morning an intrepid young man came to my office with a petition calling on my university to add sexual orientation to our non-discimination policy and I signed in heartbeat. And I am voting for Kerry in a few weeks, my first Democratic presidential vote ever. I am voting for him because he is closer to my opinions on the big conservative issues--restraining government, a strong but cautious foriegn policy, and individual rights. I know a ton of conservatives who feel the same way, and we are no small part of the reason that Kerry is polling as well as he is. So I guess I am not a Republican right now, but that is OK, "conservative" has never automatically equalled "Republican." But I surely am part of the right, and I do not think the hyperbole of the post does much to help this conversation.
• I'm used to these insults. I'm used to these bashings. I'm used to people pretending that they have a right to say who I lay in my bed, or whether my husband can rear my child with me, or partake on letting me go after being comatose for days after an accident. I am saddened. I am un-proud, of every sraight person that cheers on such a revolting activity. That cheers on such a malignant force. I am un-proud of every gay person that simply sits there and does nothing. That sits there and mopes about the situation but goes home and assumes that because it's in the news, then it must be being fought by someone, some stronger queer, in their name. I choose NOT to let anyone represent me in a fight. I choose NOT to let someone's interpretation of the bible violate my right to be an individual in the USA. I choose NOT to be cornered and be taken down like I'm so kind of lepre. FUCK THAT. I am not above hate. I'm not the stoic child that will turn the other cheek. I'm not the guy that will let some pastor from the middle of nowhere determine from who and with what intensity I should fear for my life. FUCK THAT. I too have the right to bear arms, and I will bear them, and use them if I feel my life threatened because of discrimation. I too have access to the constitution, and to representatives, and to ears above me. AND I will make them hear me! I too have the streets, which I will take to, in hordes if I must, to make sure that America understands that I'm just as common, just as faithful, just as angry, just as hopeful of the American Dream as ANY other AMERICAN. History, apparently, taught us nothing... I say, to all GAYS and LESBIANS...man the stations and bring on the war, cuz that's what we're under...
• Monkeyfilter: Hot buttery man-love.
• Fes, not Fez. Apologies.
• For those still a little bit confused, I present to you the Texas GOP party platform from 2000 in all of it's "going back to the gold standard" lovin' and anti-"decriminalization of sodomy" goodness. Make no mistake people. The Texas Republican party is currently in charge of both the legislative and executive branches of government. Do you want them to rule all three?
• What would Jesus do? Kill all gay people? Even if being gay were a sin, and I happen to think it's not (though I admit my bias), I don't think that Jesus would condone the throwing of stones here. Jesus dined with the worst sinners around- prostitutes, tax collectors, et al. He didn't kill them, he loved them. If I were Christian, I would take a lesson from The Man himself rather than some slick preacher amassing fortunes to build his congregants a fitness center rather than feeding the poor.
• Found a greatest hits of the 2000 Texas GOP platform. Via Kevin Drum
• Sadly, KamikazeGopher, though the teachings of Jesus are more popular in theory, the prejudices of St. Paul seem to be more popular in practice. At least in the SBC. Of course, there are those who have some interesting ideas about the source of Paul's prejudice...
• BlogRot-- I live in Philadelphia, and let me tell you that what is called a registered Democrat in this city (i.e. Vince Fumo, who you quote) can really mean just about anything along the political spectrum, so long as votes are received and payola gets handed out. Hell, even former mayor Frank Rizzo was a Democrat, and anyone familiar with what he did while in term would hardly call him "liberal" by any modern popular definition. This is not to defend what Fumo said. But put a degoratory statement said in the heat of the moment in the context of what the Right puts into policy on a near daily basis, now. Its not like he is handing out fliers saying that the liberals are going to destroy the country with sodomy-filled marriage ceremonies; its not like Fumo is out to pass laws that will divest equal protection from gay citizens; and Fumo is certainly not making stump speeches where he'll "revisit capital punishment for homosexuals". Let's compare apples with apples.
• I've heard that about Paul, Tenacious Pettle, and we know that he certainly struggled with inner demons (so to speak). Bishop John Shelby Spong has a lot to say about rhetoric like this in Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism and Living in Sin?: A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality.
• The problem, LarryC, is that while many conservatives and Republican voters may not feel the ideology outlined, the people at the top of the Rpublican party, and their close advisors, certainly appear to.
• rodgerd: Precisely. It is the people in power whose ideas matter, not the raving lunatic fringe. The left has it's loonies, be sure of that. Thankfully, damn few of them are in positions of power.
• I live in North Carolina, and I can tell you that over 90 percent of the radio ads that I have heard for the State Senate focus only on how a particular candidate is going to prevent gays from being able to get married in North Carolina. Over ninety percent. Several different candidates. No mention of a single other issue. It is incredible. Also, as I have said too many times to count, intelligent Republicans are mostly supportive of economic measures that help people to keep more of the money that they have earned. This position benefits too few people to carry an election. Therefore, the party welcomes in various groups of ignorant folk that it scares into voting Republican. Without these racist/sexist/homophobic/ethnocentrist people, the Republicans could not win a national election. I doubt not the sincerity, thought, and intelligence behind the conservative voices that are being heard on this thread and elsewhere. I enjoy engaging such people in spirited discussion. But the truth is that their candidates do not run on the merit of those legitimate economic arguments. They instead willingly scare the aforementioned people into joining in. I suppose that an interesting question for these thoughtful, intelligent conservatives would be: is it worth it to you to have your issues advanced by adopting offensive social positions to bring in enough votes? Is it an end-justifies-the-means type thing? Or is it deplorable, and would you rather that the party run explicitly on more legitimate issues?
• Hey, LarryC, Fes: I'm a liberal. I believe in limited government. I'm against wasteful spending, but feel that some social programs are an investment that recoups, and so I don't mind funding them. But I believe that there should be a level of fiscal responsibility that the government is held to, and that the easiest way to cut waste is to cut subsidies that prop up bloated American industries. I'm moderately interventionalist, and my biggest problem with the war in Iraq is that it was handled poorly, from inception to our current predicament. One of the major reasons I'm voting against Bush is that he's botched and bumbled something that should only be done with the tantamount care, and that's imposing American force. I understand that outsourcing is mostly a bugaboo excuse for short-term losses being offset by long-term gains. And I'm a liberal. Just like to say that I don't think a lot of the things that liberals and conservatives, especially if there's no divine sanction to argue about, a lot of the things that divide us aren't that big a deal. And that, hey, you're always welcome to throw your lot in with us. Being a liberal doesn't mean being a Democrat, but you might see more of your goals achieved if you ditch out on the party of God, Guns and Gays.
• What Patrick Johnston is doing is advocating genocide based on his interpretation of a book of fiction. I've stated my opinion on bigots enough here, and I'm just too tired to pull out the ten thousand arguments about why this asshole should be strung up and given a taste of his own advocacy of violence. There may be a cultural war coming in the U.S. I'm glad I got my family out when I did. Frankly, we should have emigrated years before, but pointed hatred like this just underlines the disgust I have for people who believe this crap, their apologists, and those who would not decry this unspeakable vilification out of fear, passivity or to pursue political gain. Anyone with such disgusting views is obviously a bigot. Any blood that is spilled in homophobic attacks is also on the hands on people like Mr. Johnston. I'm sure he'd just lick them clean and go back to inciting the narrow-minded, prejudiced idiots to commit more crimes. Fostering an environment where violence against identifiable groups is committed should be more readily persecutable by law, but you'll never see this happen in Ohio or many other states (unless those identifiable groups are specifically christian). Too bad that law enforcement and the judicial system are toothless in this regard (but can bust you for wearing the 'wrong' t-shirt to a political rally.
• A) There is no God. Sorry, there just isn't. Get over it. B) Who cares where anyone else might want to stick it? These people are trying to take over the world. I say we rise up and get them before they get us...In the name of everything they consider 'inverted'.
• kitfisto: You're right! Why didn't anyone think of that before?
• One should point out that the issue of domestic partnerships and civil unions are not a gay-only issue. There are plenty of committed, heterosexual couples that would like to share benefits while not joining an institution they don't believe in.
• er, is not a gay-only issue