Kirkland: I know that Kirk is personally acquainted with online conservative Baptists, some of whom meet his criteria for bigotry and many of whom do not.
His point, I think, was directed at the Religious Right takeover of the SBC of the past 20 years which has caused the gradual evacuation of that convention by the vast majority of people who are willing to evaluate scientific evidence and interpret the Bible according to what it suggests, who see gay people as human beings like themselves rather than active doers of the Devil’s work, and so on.
I’ve seen him trying to argue the point of human sexuality and its evaluation against people who are all too ready to cite a Bible quote and defend being negative against all gay people as a result (along with a couple who believe it defines what a Christian with gay desires ought himself to do but not what a Christian dealing with gay people ought to). I’ve seen him protest the citing of slanted news stories and be effectively ignored. (And I’ve seen him draw erroneous conclusions about those who did so.)
So if anyone is offended by his rhetoric, remember that he himself is a victim of such attitudes, and give him a little leeway in how he expresses himself.
= - = - =
Jesse Dirkhising: Anyone who sees this as in any way representative of what most gay people do should get a reality check. On the other hand, while the Advocate seems to have studiously ignored the issue, Atlanta’s gay weekly, the Southern Voice took a strong stand that gay people ought to address what happened there and come out as strongly condemning what happened.
With regard to Jesse himself, it appears that he was drawn to and enjoyed sexual relationships with older men. What that says about his developing sexuality is subject to interpretation by the individual.
= - = - =
Hate crimes legislation: My understanding of how such statutes work is either to give jurisdiction where a criminal act not only violates a particular statute governing criminal behavior but also violates another statute governing intent when committing such behavior, and/or to constitute an aggravating condition with reference to degrees of culpability. I fail to see what is improper about either of these stances, other than the “thought-crime” gimmick, which is not applicable. If you sincerely believe that the world would be a better place if all gays, all blacks, all Mormons, or whatever were dead, that’s your problem. If you act on this belief, you have not committed a “thought crime” but a normal action-with-criminal-intent crime per se, and your reasons for acting are within the purview of the court, same as if the question of whether this guy died when you hit him was because you were in a bar fight with him and were not aware of the potential he would die due to a medical condition if hit in that precise spot, or whether, knowing this, you hit and killed him because your fiancee stood to inherit most of his estate when he died. Hitting and killing him because he was gay, black, Mormon, or whatever and you hate gays, blacks, Mormons, or whatevers is the same sort of motive/intent question addressed by the above.
The Carters and other “good Southern Baptists”: There is something called the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, composed of churches (and individuals) who have withdrawn from the SBC because of its Neanderthal stances on many issues. The Carter family is (and made the news when they became) affiliated with the CBF, not the SBC. They are still “Southern Baptists” as being Baptists of Southern heritage, but not members of a church belonging to a convention of that name.
Nope, that’s one (and probably the only one) issue where my sympathies lie on the Republican side. Hate-mongers would have to think twice about hate-crimes if the possibility existed that their potential victim might be armed.