Bricker, Well, if I am reading your post in that other thread the right way I would say your tone is pretty much what I have come to expect. You seem to be saying in one breath that you support some form of legal equality for homosexuals, while at the same time being more than happy to hide behind states rights on the issue. In this respect, I think that we just have a fundamentally different take on things. My reading of you is that you are pretty much willing to let a wrong stand, as long as it is the will of the majority. My take is more along the lines of a belief that the majority of people are pretty stupid and uninformed and, from time to time, need to be dragged out of the last century. See civil rights and racial integration for examples of this.
I think that we are looking at things differently in this thread as well. The fact is that there is a fundamental difference between some one (or a group of people) seeing something as a sin, and becoming activists on that issue and trying to shove their version of morality down everyone else’s throat. Further, there is a difference between seeing something as sinful and believing that people that engage in that sin are going to hell. So, in terms of this debate, I do not see the statistic that the majority of people think homosexuality is a “sin” as particularly useful.
So, you might have posted something like “I think that what you are saying is that most gay folks are just like you and me, and it is just some extreme activists that do X but just as a reference 55% of people polled do think that it’s a sin, so lets make sure that we know just how far we still have to go in terms of the struggle for equality”. But you didn’t. And you don’t. Time after time in these threads.
I am more than willing to be wrong, hell I hope that I am. But it really seems to me that you are pretty much all about why the current inequality is OK.
I’m not about “hiding” behind anything. But when you talk of how the majority of peope are stupid, and uninformed, and need to be “dragged” – well, then we disagree. I believe if a position is meritorious, then it will be be shown right over time. I certainly support strong methods of exposing the majority to why their view is wrong – I do NOT support forcibly enacting it over their will.
I say that, and you hear that my support for gay rights is lukewarm. Not at all. You seem to have adopted the view that anything less than 100% support for The Cause, by whatever means necessary, equates to tepid or disingenuous support.
NO.
While it’s important that the law be RIGHT it’s also important that the source of the law remain the people. When you talk about dragging the unwilling majority into a law they do not support, you lose me… and this is true for any cause, any way. I am a passionate foe of abortion. But I would not like a judicially-imposed law finding that unborn children are people, worthy of Constitutional protection. That would be an end I’d like, but at a cost I’d abhor.
And so would you.
We return to this point agian and again. You support the end, no matter how you get there. I say that there are right ways and wrong ways to get there, and you cannot choose a wrong way to get your desired result and then complain when someone else follows the same path to get a result you don’t like.
I disagree.
What was mojave66’s point, if not to suggest that the viewpoint equating homosexuality to sin was not widely held?
Miller is right on the money when he says that you do yourself no good to wish away the fact that supporters of gay rights in this country are in the minority. It’s Pollyannaish in the extreme to think otherwise. To counteract this requires work. It requires a recognition of the size of the task; not a Pauline Kael-ish flittery assessment of the country’s views. And - just a thought, here - it might require a clear recognition of when someone’s on your side. I am absolutely and totally in favor of same-sex marriage, for instance. But NOT “by any means necessary.” If your tactic is to blast anyone who ISN’T in favor of BAMN, then it’s going to be a lonely and ultimately unfruitful journey.
Oh, good Lord. That’s the same sort of muddy-headed thinking that causes people to fall all over themselves assuring the reader that they’re not recially prejudiced before offering any opinion that might be construed as somehow against the interests of the black community. That’s nonsense. We are a community (with some notable exceptions) of adults that can all comprehend and analyze the written word. I’m not going to spend time putting a disclaimer in front of posts to assure people that I understand The Cause. Bullshit. Equality of rights under the law for people, regardless of their sexual orientation, is a position that must stand or fall on its on merits. I’ve indicated my support of it, and I’ve indicated that my support is conditioned upon achieving it in a way that is consistent with our notions of self-governance. If you ever have any questions upon reading a future post of mine, I suggest you bookmark this one for reference and context.
Right. So if you posted that in the 1930s, it was just a few right-wing Germans that supported the Nazi party, that would be wrong, and someone should correct you. Right?
Not that I disagree in principle, but… how many times have you had to explain this to people? Muddy-headed as it may be, it’d probably save you a lot of time to tack on that disclaimer. It may not be fair that people keep jumping to the wrong conclusions, but as you’ve said yourself, just sayin’ it ain’t fair doesn’t make people stop doing it.
No, I’m saying that very, VERY often, popular opinion is flat out wrong. 55% of the population thinking one thing doesn’t mean it’s alright to think that way.
Let’s leave aside the argument that you can’t poll all Americans; I’ll get to that later.
[quote=BrickBacon]
My statement was offered solely to rebut the statement made by mojave66 suggesting that only a tiny fraction of people were involved in thinking it was wrong.[/BrickBacon]
I was talking about evidence that homosexuality is not an illness of any type versus opinions promulgated in the late 70s by a bare handful of right-wing Christians (mis)interpreting the King James Version of the Christian Bible. Numbers aren’t really relevant except that, as you say, it creates a huge challenge to educate these people.
That psychological, anthropological and sociological evidence that shows homosexuals as mentally healthy, normal people is far more compelling than what the fundamentalists use as evidence-- ie, a couple of Paulinist quotes and then tons of misinformation that essentially dehumanize queer folks into nothing but sexually rapacious animals.
BTW, as for polling, you didn’t give a cite but according to The Roper Center’s collection of polls, 52% said homosexuality was morally wrong in 2005, but 54% said that homosexuality was an acceptable “alternative lifestyle” in 2004. In 1982, only 34% said that it was acceptable, in 1992 it was 38%. Then again, in 2005 38% said homosexuality was nature, 44% nurture, 10% both.
So yes, we have a long way to go, but hey, there IS some progress.
Well, for you to post the 55% of the people in our country are against homosexuality, it ever so slightly seems that you may be defending, perhaps even backing, their opinions.
There’s no question that the vast majority of credible evidence shows that homosexuality is nothing more than a variance behavior that appears in nature. No argument there.
What was put at issue by your words are the number of people that BELIEVE homosexuality is sinful, morally wrong, or otherwise opprobrious. It’s not a small number – it’s a large number.
mojave66 please be careful with your quoting. Bricker and I are different people. You erroneously attributed his quotes to me.
Ignorance on the subject in general? I may have not expressed the hostility and outrage many of you have, but I don’t think I was lacking compassion for Zach’s situation.
Absolutely wrong. We will never convince people to support gay rights by calling them evil and telling them their religion is twisted. Demonizing the people who espouse these beliefs will not help either. Many of these people would change if they were treated with respect and presented with rational and logical arguments. Not everyone is open to this, but many are. Assuming someone who thinks homosexuality is wrong is a hateful and evil person will never inspire the dialog that might lead to the conclusions most of us hope for.
If rationality and logic worked with these people, they wouldn’t be bigots in the first place. The goal is not to change their minds. That’s already a lost cause. The only way to deal with them is to wait for them to die off from natural causes. In the meantime, we can use them as punching bags to demonstrate the moral paucity of their positon, for the elucidation of the undecided. That’s the demographic we need to get: the people who have not yet made up their minds. One (but by no means the only) way of doing this is to clearly label the oppostion for what it is: bigots, assholes, and idiots. I’m not going to waste my time trying to change the opinions of jackasses who lock their kids away from the world for two months to scare the gay out of 'em. Anyone that dumb and that prejudiced isn’t going to listen to anything I have to say, anyway. But hey! If you want to give it a shot, knock yourself out.
Bricker, I guess that the general question that I have for you is this: when is enough, enough? At what point do we get to do what is right in spite of the majority? For example, when the National Guard was sent in to enforce integration is schools, would you say that this was an example of the right idea but bad process?
I do get, in principal, the philosophy of getting to a noble goal by noble means. And I do get that there is a hell of a slippery slope involved in the minority imposing its will on the majority. I just wonder if there is some point at which the price of ongoing human misery becomes too much.
It shouldn’t matter what percentage of what sampling of people were polled. The law should not be based on narrow religious views or general bigotry (which is what this is). Laws are not supposed to be “powered” by ignorance. It’s high time we dumped the “puritan” mindset once and for all. It’s high time we toss aside the nonsensical rhetorical excuse that the country was founded on some super secret and unlisted “christian ideals”. It’s time this country grows up. Until that time, the laws should be changed, at the local, state and federal level.
If, as the poll says, people just think it’s sinful, then they can get over it. It’s not the govenment’s job to enforce religion. Separation of church and state plays here, in a big way.
This may have been linked to already- if so, my apologies- but the cover story http://salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/19/gaytherapy/index.html]yesterday and yesterday in Salon has been about “reparative therapy”. (Salon requires a subscription to read on a daily basis but you can get a day pass for free.)
Bricker, I mostly agree with your position on the hows and whys of the political struggle. No one is going to convince anyone by telling them how stupid they are.
But, a question: do you ever stand up for your beliefs and mention this to people when you fundraise for candidates who are opposed to it (and heck, even want to prevent gay people from raising children or being able to have legal contracts with each other)? Is this an issue on which you actually openly lobby in political life, or one which you simply hold in private? I can’t imagine it would make you very popular in say, Virginian Republican circles given the platform and positions of the major candidates and power figures.
