In a recent discussion here, a few gay rights supporters seemed to suggest that supporting the “normalizing” or mainstreaming of homosexuality is somehow self-evidently “right.”
As I noted there and will note again, given that at least 93 of the world’s 192 nations criminalize homosexuality to some extent, with 7 of them having homosexuality punishable by death, the overall global consensus on homosexuality remains somewhat intractably negative.
Even in nations that don’t outright criminalize homosexuality, they still marginalize it and often make it criminal to advocate homosexuality as “a normal, natural human activity.”
Earlier this month, Russia’s top court upheld a ban on gay pride marches in the Russian capital for the next 100 years. (SEE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19293465)
While I consider such a prognosis somewhat “giddily optimistic,” I also STILL believe that given current trends, support for gay-rights won’t reach 30% of the world’s population within the current century UNLESS there is some sudden and unexpected shift in human beliefs and behavior.
In short, there is no clear-cut “right” or “wrong” on this issue (mainstreaming deviant sexual practices – homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality, etc.) and given that the overwhelming global opinion on this issue is decidedly (even overwhelmingly) anti-sexual liberation, it doesn’t pay for ANY who support sexual liberation to assume that the arguments FOR it are at all “self-evident.”
Very clearly they don’t appear to be anything like that.
I really have no overwhelming desire or need to reenter this fray. However, I will simply state a couple points and then go back to other activities.
– A citizen of the US who has not committed a crime that results in some degree of loss of the privileges of citizenship should be entitled to all the privileges of citizenship. Those include serving in the military, engaging in personal contracts, and mingling with other members of society.
– I really am not at all interested (at least for purposes of discussing US policy) in how other countries view the issue. This is especially true in the case of nations such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, and other dictatorship/oligarchies
– While I agree that the words, “self evident” have little to offer in discussions and debates about issues, the fact remains that our governing documents generally guarantee rights to all citizens (sort of a restatement of the first point, isn’t it?)
– I confess to remaining puzzled as to why you include bestiality with homosexuality and polygamy. The latter two both imply legitimate consensual activity whereas the former does not.
The gay rights crowd lost some of my support in the Chick-Fil-a kerflufle. There is a difference between having a right and having everyone’s approval. Just as you may have the right to free speech, you can’t reasonably expect everyone to approve of what you say. Many people drink alcohol. Many people disapprove of drinking alcohol. I disapprove of smoking, but don’t hate anyone for smoking. (But, wouldn’t marry or data a smoker.)
It should be blatantly obvious, self-evident even, why gay marriage stands as something many people don’t approve of. Outside of recent examples, I know of no society in history that recognized gay marriage. For the gay rights advocates to come out with the bigotry/hate accusations was over the top. They showed their own hatred and lack of tolerance.
Ed – Curiously, bestiality is legal in several states.
The other states where it’s legal are Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming and the District of Columbia.
Do you consider Russia a dictatorship or an oligarchy? I thought is was pretty much a democracy now. Probably about as much as we are. Oligarchy sure seems to fit the U.S.
Dad,
Neither side in the ChickFA business has displayed much in the way of ethical or polite interchange. Your very appropriate description of “Many people drink alcohol. Many people disapprove of drinking alcohol. I disapprove of smoking, but don’t hate anyone for smoking. (But, wouldn’t marry or data a smoker.)” pretty well sums up my position on homosexual citizens being accorded full citizenship rights. I am not homosexual but see no reason why I or anyone else should impose that position on persons who are homosexual.
I remain unclear how bestiality relates to discussions of homosexuality. I agree that it should probably be illegal since I am a firm advocate of sexual encounters being fully consensual at all levels (from flirting to sexual union). Animals and children cannot give consent so should not be subjected to sexual union.
As near as I can tell from news reports and reports out of Russia (Defiance by Alex Konanykhin is an excellent example), that country remains severely oppressed by a repressive government. Voting is allowed but may be meaningless. Free speech is respected so well that the rather strange group, Pussy Riot have been sentenced to two years for singing a song opposed to President Putin. In order to really cover the bases, the charges were related to religious hooliganism. Being allowed to vote says little about the status of freedom for citizens. That is particularly the case when, as in many nations, freedoms are “generously” extended to the citizens rather than being considered innate characteristics of citizenship that the government is given powers sufficient to ensure from external or internal threat. So. to answer your question, I consider Russia to be a repressive government in which a small number of persons carry heavy authority. In other words, an oppressive oligarchy.
Neither side in the ChickFA business has displayed much in the way of ethical or polite interchange.
Oh, really? Show me the where Chick-Fil-a supporters were unethical and impolite any where close to the level of the other side. Did you hear about this gay activist shooting up this conservative organization’s offices.
I won’t argue with you about Russia except to say we’re not as far from them as you seem to think. How different were the reactions of the mayors of Chicago, Boston and San Francisco from what you cite in Russia? Our hate crime laws also come very close, especially as applied, to what you cite. Blacks prey on whites for fun. But, it’s not a hate crime.
I believe I have made it clear in past entries that I consider the concept of “hate” crime as inappropriate in the least and antifreedom in its more extremes. Example is the enforcement of anti hate speech in Canada greatly limiting what has, in the past been a nation of free speech.
Yes, I heard about the criminal shooting persons in the organization’s offices. Violent criminal activity appears to have no political allegiance and should be condemned by anyone of any political persuasion.
“Blacks prey on whites for fun. But, it’s not a hate crime.” (DaD)
.
.
Interesting you should bring this up.
I’m currently reading Colin Flaherty’s powerful book, White Girl Bleed a Lot ( . It should be MUST READING for every American.
Do you mean bestiality is legalized or just not illegal? A fine distinction, but one nonetheless.
Decriminalized, which would be the same for prostitution, etc.
“The gay rights crowd lost some of my support in the Chick-Fil-a kerflufle.” (In short, if you aren’t in the mainstream, you aren’t allowed any of the bad behavior that is routine in the mainstream.)
“In short, if you aren’t in the mainstream, you aren’t allowed any of the bad behavior that is routine in the mainstream.” (WS)
.
.
I haven’t seen any such “behavior” (that is no equivalent “anti-gay marriage Adam Smith”) on the part of those opposed to gay marriage.
What’s frightening, WS is that there are actually a very few American extremists, a virtual would-be “American Taliban,” who’d claim that merely stating their opinion that “gay marriage is unethical and shouldn’t be sanctioned,” is as “outrageous” as what Adam Smith did.
Now, I tend to support gay marriage, but I oppose such Talibanists to such an extent that I’d literally stone such extremists in our streets. Seriously….it COULD BE fun. It would also show the rest of the world that we really do take our principles (free speech, etc) super-seriously!
My people (the Celts) have suffered for over 2,000 years and we’re not going to allow a group (of “extreme Leftists”), most of whom don’t appear to be all that willing to fight for what they believe in, to silence debate.
We freedom-lovers don’t attempt to stifle debate.
I’ve considered both sides of this topic and while I support sexual liberation, I’m also convinced that those opposed to homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption are expressing a viable, majority viewpoint and it’s incumbent upon those (like me) who disagree to make polite, yet compelling arguments for our side, be they chicken-plookers or male-on-male “boi-bang” officiandos.
I think DaD was right in asserting, “Show me the where Chick-Fil-a supporters were unethical and impolite anywhere close to the level of the other side.” I haven’t seen that either.
All this proves is that sheep don’t vote (yet. Keep an eye on Wyoming and Montana.)
The issue is the presumption of “rightness,” by either side, Ed.
Both sides should be free to make their cases.
Derision or scorn of another’s argument is neither an argument for the other side, nor a rebuttal to the argument derided, in fact, it’s generally done by those who can’t make an effective argument for their side.
In the one notorious case of bestiality I know of (Mary Queen of Scotts and the horse…) well, the horse appeared to be a willing (ergo “consensual”) participant.
.
.
.
.
“Show me the where Chick-Fil-a supporters were unethical and impolite…” (DaD)
.
.
That distinction is absolutely correct. I’ve never seen any of the pro-Cathy side acting impolitic.
If supporting “traditional marriage at the exclusion of all other alternatives,” is “unethical” or “impolite,” that would effectively decide the argument, wouldn’t it Ed?
By that I mean, since the best the opponents of those opposed to gay marriage could do would be to seek to shut down debate by preemptively declaring the other side “wrong” and “unethical,” they’d have effectively ceded that argument to the other side.
I’d prefer such people to fade into the background, since they do the issue a grave disservice. I can make an affirmative argument in favor of sexual liberation based entirely on individual liberty/”freedom.”
The other side, would be free, however, to counter with the numerous examples of where America has decided to abridge various liberties for “the public good.” The most grotesque of which was the 18th Amendment, but we’ve criminalized many voluntary exchanges and continue to do so – recreational drugs are criminalized, prostitution, etc.
Making an affirmative argument can be hard, which is why the alternative of attempting to “shut down the other side,” with derision and claims that it’s “wrong-headed” or unethical on its face, is so tempting. . .and so very wrong.
The end result, of course is the polarization we have today.
I place the vast majority of the blame misguided, emotional thinking “liberals” for the bulk of that polarization. They’ve inanely resented and sought to silence Conservative voices from Limbaugh to Savage and acted as though the world were coming to an end when Fox News glommed better ratings than CNN & MSNBC combined.
Those are NOT “my kind of liberals.” Hell, I’ve agreed with Dave Brock that today’s American media SHOULD BE roughly 65% Conservative, looking at the way the ideological breakdown within the U.S. goes.
Such Leftist “liberals” are illogically inconsistent on the issue of freedom/individual Liberty. The MOST BASIC human liberty is economic freedom – we all get to fight on an equal footing, the bill Gates’, the Bloomberg’s and the Vic Neiderhoffer’s (the Milton Friedman devotee, responsible for developing George Soros’ Quantum Fund), along with the HS drop out and we see. . .in the end, who comes out on top.
The idea that “such a game is rigged in favor of the best educated and better connected,” is, at heart, an anti-freedom ethos. I am proudly pro-free market, pro-abortion, pro-gun (pro-violent self defense), anti-”entitlement” (you’re “entitled” to whatever you can EARN), pro-sexual freedom, anti-income tax/pro-consumption taxes, pro-equality before the law, pro-equality of opportunity, and thus anti-racial preferences and anti-”hate”/thought crimes, etc.
Anyone who isn’t entirely consistent on the issue of freedom/individual liberty is NOT a true liberal.
To me that’s the entire problem right there – we’ve had naive, ignorant anti-liberals posing as “liberals” (which is why I use quotes when referring to so-called “liberals”), who’ve been unable to make anything EXCEPT emotional appeals for their side, deliberately polarizing Conservatives (who out number all liberals by better than 2 to 1), to the point where Left & Right don’t even accept common sources any more.
JMK, you state, “Derision or scorn of another’s argument is neither an argument for the other side, nor a rebuttal ” above. If you are referring to some comment on my part, please let me know which one. I certainly had no intent to deride nor scorn any one’s position. I simply believe it appropriate for all citizens of this country to enjoy all the rights of citizenship. I know that many opposed to marriage for homosexuals believe that this would somehow limit their own heterosexual marriages’ sanctity. I confess to not understanding how that can be. I also realize that the same concept that should allow for homosexuals to engage in personal contracts should allow for private organizations (such as churches) to not participate in public performance of such contracts if they do not wish to do so.
Will one or more of you who oppose homosexual personal contracts (marriage, civil union, or whatever other term desired) explain how such contracts will endanger others, limit the freedoms of others, or damage traditional religiously sanctified marriages.
I am not referring to your posts Ed, I am asserting that THAT is the standard “liberal” reply.
On this subject, you had in the past declared those who support “traditional marriage” (that between 1 man and 1 woman) as bigots.
That too, is not an affirmative argument for sexual liberation.
When I look at global attitudes, homosexuality is overwhelmingly marginalized and in about half the world’s nations outright criminalized, which undermines a favorite argument of emotional thinkers; “The vast majority of the world’s people…”
I respect the arguments of the other side on those. They are very worthy of serious consideration.
That professor of statistical analysis has been exchanging information with me over the proportion pedophiles who are also homosexuals.
As I acknowledged, I like apparently MOST others looked at the issue AS IF homosexuals were 50% of the population, therefore any percentage of 50% or LESS homosexual involvement in pedophilia would amount to “no more likely than straights to…”
I am willing to admit that the initial percentage used (looking at gays and bisexuals as a larger percentage of the population than they are) is a very flawed one.
As he notes, the ONLY organized group defending pedophilia and legally challenging “age of consent laws” (NAMBLA) is a gay group, the two BIGGEST and most widespread child-sex scandals involved homosexual relations.
The legitimate mathematical questions then are; (1) what precise percentage of the population to gays & bisexuals comprise and (2) what percentage of the prosecuted acts of pedophilia does that group (homosexuals AND bisexuals) comprise?
Again, those are fair questions.
We CANNOT afford to come into such a discussion with a preconceived viewpoint. That’s what Arthur Jansen did, when he investigated race and IQ. In his excellent tome “Bias in Mental Testing” (which pretty accurately explained his initial premise – that ANY differences between ethnic groups MUST be due to some sort of testing bias), despite the fact that by the end of his research the numbers led him exactly to the REVERSE conclusion (no testing bias).
Same with John Lott, the Yale Research Fellow who came into the gun control debate presuming more guns would generally render MORE crime. He also found that the numbers led to exactly the REVERSE conclusion!
Those were two very honest researchers who let the numbers show them the errors in their premises. There are too many so-called “researchers” who look to bend, fold and manipulate the data to fit their preconceived notions, no matter how wrong those are.
Right now my former classmate has used 20% as the number of gays AND bisexuals in the American population.
I tend to find that a rather high number and would need to have that vetted, to a much more precise degree. I am….uncomfortable accepting that 20% number out of the ether as it were.
There’s also a follow-up question, that would HAVE TO be asked and that is; “If homosexuals & bisexuals ARE over-represented among pedophiles DOES THAT lend ANY credence at all to the struggle of groups like NAMBLA?. . .OR should we redouble our efforts and the penalties for that crime, given that such a compunction seems virtually uncontrollable by those afflicted?