spectrum, I don't get it.

The BBQ Pit
121

Thank you; I really appreciate that. That’s stuck in my craw for awhile.

I guess I don’t see your evidence for that. An example of the sort of evil they won’t sink to? Well, near as I can tell, they haven’t sunk to the depths of lynchings or mass murder, and I don’t see evidence that they’d sink to these depths; imagining that they might doesn’t constitute evidence. So I still think you should say that, horrible as they are, they’re not as bad as the KKK at its worst or as bad as the Nazis at their worst. That’s not condoning what they’re doing; that’s just recognizing that evil comes in gradations.

At the point where they commit mass murders, or even at the point where they call for them, then I’ll agree with you.

Daniel

122

I should have apologized in the thread in question.

They torture children.

There is no difference in my eyes between killing a person and torturing them, adult or child, until they are so scarred and broken that they deny a core, unchangeable, defining facet of their humanity. Except perhaps the length of time during which the victim suffers.

123

In fairness, didn’t the poster-child of the Ex-Gay movement show up in a gay bar a little while back? See, even he didn’t deny a core facet of his humanity. :smiley: I get a certain schadenfreude out of the failings of the Moral Majority.

(I’d offer a cite, but I don’t remember the dude’s name. Can anyone help me?)

124

John Paulk, I believe is his name, yes. He’s one of the evil masterminds of this movement.

But, c’mon. He was only there to use the bathroom. :wink:

125

At the risk of coming across as one of them uppity homos instead of a respectable representative of The Movement: that’s still unacceptable. As bad as lynchings or gas chambers? No, that’s hyperbole. But your saying that adults can “opt out” is so ludicrous as to be offensive.

People realize there’s something “different” about their orientation long before adulthood, before puberty, often long before they even realize what sex is in the first place.

Society has already pretty much abandoned the practice of forcing left-handed to kids to become right-handed. And I have yet to hear any reports of kids killing themselves because of left-handed depression, or being the subject of anti-left-handed hate violence, or engaging in risky left-handed behavior because they’ve tried too long to supress it. But we’re just supposed to let parents, out of ignorance or the misinformation spread by the intrusive “ex-gay movement,” force their children to make themselves straight, and just stand back and watch, and say that it’s the parents’ decision? Even if you concede that it’s “horrifying” for kids?

And then, as an adult, I have the “option” not to be subjected to this? Thanks so much. While you’re allowing me this, can I also “opt out” of being subjected to having people use the uncredited and unsubstantiated process of “reparative therapy” as evidence that I’m living my life the wrong way, that I have chosen a life of sin and perversion, and as a result I have only myself to blame when rights are denied me? Because I sure would appreciate it.

I honestly can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not there. I don’t hear much difference between what you say there and what I’ve heard from countless people speaking out about “reparative therapy,” same-sex adoption, and same-sex marriage. They talk about polygamy and pedophilia and beastiality. They talk about the inherent promiscuity, emptiness, and unhealthy behavior that all homosexuals take part in. They claim that their rights and family values are at risk.

126

Never mind; I hadn’t noticed this message from earlier in the thread. I was responding to the bit that implied that allowing adults to “opt out” was in any way an acceptable solution. And to the increasing rhetoric from the so-called “ex-gay” movement that some Gay Agenda were infringing on their rights by not allowing them to subject homosexuals to this kind of treatment.

Indeed. As much as I appreciate someone’s telling me that I’ve worded something well, I’m uncomfortable with the notion of turning into a Confirmed Bachelor Uncle Tom.

127

Sol Grundy makes a very good point; one of the arguments made by the fundies is that all homosexuals lack basic morals, that children are not safe with us. Why then do you not turn around and indict all heterosexuals when incidents like this pop up?

128

And yet nobody thought to ask him for what.

Um, yes. Like SolGrundy said. I don’t think people should accept Queer people because I can occasionally be nice. I think people should accept Queer people because that is the right thing to do.

As I said before, I find, on a direct level, spectrum’s assertions to often be overbroad and very poorly expressed. However, they appear to come from a moral position I share: that while condemning the oppression of Queers, far too often we regard certain expressions thereof as negotiable when they are not.

In other words, my issue with spectrum is a matter of style, not content.

For a quick rundown of my position in this regard, I refer people to this post.

129

As happens most days, I was beaten by the bell yesterday afternoon (HK time) when the server took its well-deserved rest. Here is what I wrote then, together with updates based on stuff that’s been posted in the interim.

PG wrote (messages #95 & 90): “Would you [support a person’s right to preach] the subjugation of women, fascist dictatorship, female genital mutilation, forced weddings, child weddings, or mass murder based on their beliefs?”

This question has to do with freedom of speech; it also has to do with the law; it also combines a range of rather different entities in the same list. (Always beware of lists–they are a favourite device of politicians, eg Blair, for this very reason.)

For that reason I’m going to take the Fifth on this one.

But in answer to the assumed follow-up question, do I support someone’s right to preach that homosexuality is a sin, then yes, I do. I also support someone’s right to preach that anyone who preaches that homosexuality is a sin is evil, and also that homosexuality is good, natural etc.

In response to Sol (message #91):

Yes, but my idea of making the world a better place might differ from yours in some important specifics.

To Daniel (message #93): Thanks – I did indeed misuse ‘enervating’ – I meant something like energising or invigorating. Incidentally, the value of the debate may be seen from the fact that someone like Ellis Dee is rethinking the issues.

I’ve already refined ‘natural’ down to ‘designed by God’ – so those who do homosexual acts are seen by me as acting in a way that was not designed by God – thus unnatural, thus wrong.

130

I wanted to add: spectrum’s failure to be personable does not excuse others of their responsibility to accept Queer people. You don’t get to say “I don’t have to refrain from violating your civil rights, because that guy’s being rude.”

131

What, like living in houses?

132

bodswood, I asked a while ago whether or not you could find yourself able to support full human rights for gays, even though you still believe in your heart that it is a “sin.” (The same way that I disapprove of gambling, but won’t vote to bar others from enjoying it.) Could you ever see yourself getting to that point? Is it a possibility?

133

I’m a 58-year-old gay man, and I’ve seen and experience the entire “spectrum” of this issue.

I’ve lost count of how many people I’ve known who were murdered or commited suicide because the Bible says homosexuality is wrong.

I’ve lost count of how many people I’ve known who died of a horrible disease because of an indifferent government whose supporters believe that homosexuality is wrong.

And I’ve lost count of how many individuals I’ve known who live “lives of quiet desperation,” hiding their inner-most feelings from their loved ones and the world, because they were taught that homosexuality is wrong.

It’s not the gay bashers who are the main problem; it’s not Fred Phelps or Jerry Fallwell or George Bush. They are the symptom, not the problem. The problem is the belief that homosexuality is wrong.

To a large extent, we are what we believe; and we have to take responsibility for all the ideas that we accept, and also for the actions that those ideas make possible. It’s not possible to believe in a wrong idea without bearing some responsibility for the people who act on that idea.

I’ve done more than my share of dispassionate, intellectual persuasion, sometimes successfully and sometimes to no avail. And of course we have to continue to “fight ignorance” as long as we live. But we also need the people who scream from the rooftops - who scream in anger and frustration in the face of this monstrous, unjust lie. We need them to light the fire under our cool-headed debates, and keep that fire burning until that lie is put to rest.

134

Sorry. I don’t think we can just give spectrum a pass on his bad behavior.

Just because we’re all on an anonymous message board doesn’t liberate us from basic rules of civility. You should be polite and respectful because it’s the right and decent thing to do. And spectrum has not been polite or respectful.

C’mon, I’ve been here for a while as an outspoken conservative, and I’ve never been pitted or caught a warning. It isn’t that hard.

135

yosemite: ‘I asked a while ago whether or not you could find yourself able to support full human rights for gays, even though you still believe in your heart that it is a “sin.” (The same way that I disapprove of gambling, but won’t vote to bar others from enjoying it.) Could you ever see yourself getting to that point? Is it a possibility?’

First, I’m not sure of it’s an entirely apt analogy (although I think you’d agree with me on that, since your point was not to find an “exact” analogy - please correct me if I’m wrong). The issue of gambling allows of a mixed approach, whereby both non-gamblers (like you) and gamblers (like me - I’ve never been to a casino but like a flutter on the horses) can put our heads together and discuss a compromise. It might be along the Hong Kong lines (one body has the monopoly of all (legal) gambling, and that gambling consists only of a lottery, horse racing and football betting). Or it might be along the lines of creating gambling enclaves, like Macau or Las Vegas. (There are of course those who oppose all forms of gambling but they are not relevant to my point.)

Essentially, both those who indulge in gambling and those who don’t accept that gambling is something, like smoking, that is a matter of choice. It needs to be limited and the vulnerable need to protected from it. Not everyone will be happy, but compromise is possible.

Homosexual rights seems to be of a different order. For a start, many of the people who do gambling or smoking believe they are bad habits and want to kick them. Homosexuals don’t fit easily into this mould. Those who might be construed to fit into this position (I’m referring to those who want to go straight or those being “forced” to go straight, via for example reparative therapy - which incidentally I don’t like the sound of) are hardly typical of what someone called the cultural left. When I debate with you guys, I take it as read that your position is that you are not indulging in anything bad and that you have absolutely nothing to apologise about.

So, the analogy is difficult to work with.

Back to your core question, as to whether I support full human rights for gays, the honest answer is no, as there are some things which you would call rights which I would not give to homosexual couples, the right of adoption for example, for the sake of the child.

As for panache’s post, I note the attempt to stay calm, but nonetheless would like to know what he means by the following:

“To a large extent, we are what we believe; and we have to take responsibility for all the ideas that we accept, and also for the actions that those ideas make possible. It’s not possible to believe in a wrong idea without bearing some responsibility for the people who act on that idea.”

Are you suggesting custodial terms for people like me for incitement, or some such? How else do you propose that people who don’t think they are responsible for another person’s suicide should be brought to their senses about this? Re-education? Therapy?

136

Since I had a problem understanding my own sentence when I read it, here’s it again with commas added:

“Essentially, both those who indulge in gambling, and those who don’t, accept that gambling is something, like smoking, that is a matter of choice.”

137

I’m gay. I have a son. His mother is a lesbian. If you had the power, would you take our son away?

138

Take him away from who and from where?

139

Don’t be coy. You know what I was asking. Would you remove our son from our custody (he splits time between his mother’s house and mine) and give him to a straight couple to adopt?

140

All other things being equal, in the case of divorced couples I wouldn’t advocate taking kids away from either parent.