Mike Airhart was the founding editor of Ex-Gay Watch, until he left in 2007. He has returned as a contributing writer. He is a project manager and data scientist for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and an interfaith advocate, living near Phoenix, Arizona.
For all the reasons Islamic Terrorists hate the west, Janet Jackson and Gay Marriage aren’t helping one little bit.
And I made an interesting observation just the other day: “In saudi arabia, ALL women are beautiful.” That should make for a thoughtful contrast here in the land of anorexia, bulemia, and botox.
Fascinating, considering the common practice of pederasty in Taliban Afghanistan. The real “decadence” the Taliban, Saudi clerics, and Colson decry is sex between avowed equals. That includes adult homosexuals, but also includes heterosexual marriages where the participants reject the concept of male headship in favor of egalitarian partnership.
You might read Carmen bin Laden’s book about being a western wife of one of the bin Laden brothers. In Saudi Arabia, a lot of women are depressed.
“Fascinating, considering the common practice of pederasty in Taliban Afghanistan.”
Actually, one of the things that drove the Taliban to power was their promise to “take care of” (meaning execute the offenders) the pederasty problem.
The pederasty that occurs is done almost exclusively by heterosexually oriented men who are using boys hovering around the age of puberty as substitutes for women (think about it — at that age, the boys are just about the average size of women — around 5’4, 110 lbs or so).
Why do they need substitutes? Because just about all of the women are sequestered. But like adult homosexuality, this practice is by no means vetted by the Islamofascist Mullahs.
U.S. TV is positively puritanical in comparison to European and Japanese television.
Regarding gay marriage:
Traditional marriage is a lifelong contract of fidelity between two people. Radical Muslim and Christian activists like Colson seem to want to change that — for example, making marriage a rather brutal political tool of church and state, and handing out unfunded “tax cuts” to the married while burying the unmarried under a $7 trillion national debt.
The pederasty that occurs is done almost exclusively by heterosexually oriented men
Homosexual behavior is commonplace in the Islamic world (like everywhere i assume), pederasty or otherwise. But i don’t think anyone from those cultures would consider it an “orientation” by any means, and certainly they would find the idea of too men marrying each other as ridiculous as i do. It seems to be only about getting your rocks off.
Traditional marriage is a lifelong contract of fidelity between two people.
Are you competing for overgeneralization of the year Mike? Or would you settle for oversimplification of the week? Lifelong? Arguable. Fidelity? Arguable. Only two people? Arguable. ANY two “people”? Utterly Absurd — ONLY members of the opposite sex.
I guess redefining the word “marriage” isn’t enough anymore, so now you want to go and tinker with “traditional” too???
Aside from Colson’s troubling embrace of the Pat Robertson/Jerry Fallwell “the evil liberals made God angry so he let 9/11 happen” argument, it is interesting that these “moral” culture warriors never bring up the other ingredient in our supposed decadence – money. It is money, after all, and the relentless pursuit of it for only part of the population, that drives the GOP. It is an overabundance of wealth that allowed the Hilton sisters to become little more than high-spending exibitionists. And it is money that fueled the desire of the Bush Administration to invade Iraq (and develop a breeding ground for future terrorism) and help increase the already sizable wealth of the buddies of George and Dick.
If we want to talk about decadence, let’s talk about a President who has never, ever, been forced to work for anything he’s had – that has made him the arrogant pr*ck he is and fueled the anger and disgust of the rest of the world, Islamic countries included.
And let us not forget it is the pursuit of money and power that drives the leaders of Islamic countries, so they must encourage anti-American hatred to hide the true source of their countries’ problems – the repression of their government.
Funny, Afghanistan was a very Western, and yet Muslim country in the 1970s – it was war, invasion and the resultant loss of material goods that allowed the radical version of Islam (which has NEVER made anyone’s life better)to flourish.
But I guess a nuanced piece actually looking at the reasons for the rise of radical Islam is too difficult – particularly when you can just blame the faggots – right, Marty?
Marty, I agree with you that TV is oversexed, but I think you’re ignoring the causes of TV sex and violence: Profit motive and underregulation. And I get the impression that you agree with Colson and radical Muslims when they argue that individual freedom is a very bad thing.
And I get the impression that you agree with Colson and radical Muslims when they argue that individual freedom is a very bad thing.
Bzzzt – incorrect impression. But since you asked…
Individual Freedom is a Very Good Thing, but without the guiding hand of social responsibility it leads to “every man for himself, if it feels good do it”.
As Doom pointed out, money (greed) and a devil-may-care attitude is what is at fault here. Personally, i beleive that no regulation would be neccesary if people behaved responsibly, and when they did not, they were called to account and publicly shamed by their neighbors. Of course, that just seems so “judgemental and intolerant” in our current anything-goes society.
I beleive people should fear and respect the judgement of their neighbors far more than the judgement of the police and judiciary. These days, too many people fear or respect neither.
Ray, according to the community standard — the values of our neighbors — they are not behaving responsibly.
(Of course i’m assuming that your ‘two consenting adults’ are a same-sex couple — you didn’t say — but even if they were an umarried normal-sex couple, the community would most likely frown on them “shacking up”, expecting them to be married.)
Your definition of “responsibility” will not always jive with the values of your neighbors. The question you have to ask is, will you respect the standards of the community in which you live, or will you disrespect them?
same-sex/opposite-sex, doesn’t matter. If two people want to live together, commit to being responsible/accountable to each other, what’s the problem? Personal/private standards and values do not need to mirror social/public standards in all regards. What matters in society is how members of society treat each other, but in our society we have a thing called ‘liberty’ which allows people to set the limits of their private lives fairly liberally. I could erect a pup-tent and live in it in the middle of Uptown, with campfires, porta-potty, goats and pigs, and all the rest, and the neighbors would be right to be upset for my bringing down the value of the neighboring properties. If I lived with a partner in a home similar to other homes in the area, and we kept it up in a manner fitting the neighborhood, I can’t imagine anyone having a real problem with the fact that we might not be an opposite sex couple, or that our union isn’t recognized by law. “Living together” is become as common as “marriage”, and most folks today acknowledge partered couples as a couple, married or not.
If I were to be in a committed relationship with another, how it is disrespectful to my neighbors? Would you find it disrespectful if I were in a relationship with someone and we lived next door to you, and on what grounds would the details my private life actually be disrespectful? (assuming we aren’t making love with the windows full open for others to watch or other blatant exhibitionism.)
On the grounds that I and most of my neighbors find it immoral, and we teach our children likewise. Because you, as a fellow neighbor, are living a lifestyle that we abhor, and are exposing our children to the exact opposite of what we have been teaching them, then you serve as an anti-role-model.
Feel free not to respect that if you must. Just don’t be suprised when your neighbors shun you, stigmatize you, and hold you up as an example of what-not-to-do for our children. Peer pressure is how community standards are best enforced.
On the grounds that I and most of my neighbors find it immoral, and we teach our children likewise. Because you, as a fellow neighbor, are living a lifestyle that we abhor, and are exposing our children to the exact opposite of what we have been teaching them, then you serve as an anti-role-model.
What’re you’re forgetting Marty, is that respect for your neighbours is a two-way street. If a religious fundamentalist were to move next door to me and my boyfriend and lambaste me about the evils of our relationship, well not only would that be disrespectful, but intruding and immoral as well.
Not only that, Start realizing that many (and soon becoming a majority) of us find that a majority of people that share your views are extremely negative role-models. I certainly wouldn’t want to expose my children to the “fire and brimstone” diatribe religious conservatives spew and I certainly wouldn’t want my neighbours intruding into my family life.
By all means, you’re free to hold any view you wish, but don’t expect me or anyone, be they queer or even straight, to fit into your narrow mould of how the world is supposed to function. If someone finds it disrespectful about me holding hands with my bf in public, well that person should realize I find it even more disrespectful that such person protests against something that isn’t of his or her business.
Marty:
Feel free not to respect that if you must. Just don’t be suprised when your neighbors shun you, stigmatize you, and hold you up as an example of what-not-to-do for our children. Peer pressure is how community standards are best enforced.
Ah… now you’re implying that mob rule against neighbours is a good idea. Isn’t that what got the people of Sodom into trouble? Not that I’d think you’d engage in middle-eastern style gang rape, but the concept of being inhospitable to your neighbours does apply.
Peer pressure is all the more reason to live our lives openly, since we have nothing to be ashamed of. It is a good thing to show the next generation that not only does exclusionary, narrow-minded bigotry not work, it is built on things that aren’t true. It is a good thing for kids to see men and women, men and men, women and women holding hands and showing common affection in public (not groping or making out in the public streets, but a genuine warm hug and kiss when appropriate, for example), because it’s a non-issue and does no harm to a child to see that genuine love is acceptable in all its forms.
I wouldn’t want my children (I have 4) or grandchildren (I’ve been given six, so far) thinking it’s okay to criticize others just for being different.
You can consider me an “anti-role model” for your own beliefs, but I’m not responsible for conforming to your beliefs or limiting the expressions of my life in order to spare your children from reality. I’d rather be a role model of honesty and decency toward all people. I suspect the harm isn’t in showing kids that others live differently, but that they’d discover you weren’t fully honest with them about other people. (Perhaps honest in your sincerity and belief, but not honest in your facts about homosexuality and people who are gay.)
I can’t wait to hear what “facts” you are talking about Ray, but alas, we’ve abused this thread enough already. I’m sure our paths will cross again, on this fine blog or mine, where we do little else but debate the factuality of such “facts”.
Actually, most of my neighbors would be fine with Ray and some other guy, in a committed relationship with each other, moving in next door. Some of them might prefer that the pair use the new California domestic partner law, rather than that California law be changed to allow them to actually marry, but few would feel disrespected by the fact that they were living together as a couple. And most of the people at my church (a liberal Quaker meeting) would be fine with the pair showing up together at meeting, as a couple. And would accept them if they wanted to be married in the care of the meeting. So, according to Marty’s principle that everyone should respect the community standard, I guess if Ray comes to live in my community, he’s living responsibly.
I’m all in favor of enforcing community standards by peer pressure rather than making laws; I just note that the result may be favorable to Marty’s values in some communities, but not in others. And peer pressure does, of course, work both ways.
I’ll keep that in mind if I decide to leave New Orleans and need to shop for an inclusive and welcoming community (and church). In my current reality of course, I don’t know if having a partner is merely hypothetical or completely moot … but maybe if I move to a better community, my status might fare better as well. 🙂
Colson and other antigay activists are betting that, when the sequel to September 11 occurs, the American people will be even more eager to scapegoat gay people than they have been during the battles to constitutionally ban gay civil unions and to ban gay adoption and revoke gay participation in existing antidiscrimination laws.
Colson et al are probably right. And they may yet achieve their desired bloodbath.
Terrorist events are the sole fault of the terrorists who commit the attacks. And fundamentalist terrorism is not confined to Islam. As the Southern Poverty Law Center often notes, Christian extremists also participate in terrorism.
Those who blame anyone but the terrorists merely aid and abet terrorism while excusing and justifying the slaughter of innocent people.
Marty:
“On the grounds that I and most of my neighbors find it immoral, and we teach our children likewise. Because you, as a fellow neighbor, are living a lifestyle that we abhor, and are exposing our children to the exact opposite of what we have been teaching them, then you serve as an anti-role-model.
Feel free not to respect that if you must. Just don’t be suprised when your neighbors shun you, stigmatize you, and hold you up as an example of what-not-to-do for our children. Peer pressure is how community standards are best enforced.”
Marty, this line of thought is just bizarre. What if a practicing Catholic moved into a predominately Baptist community and was shunned for his religious beliefs? Does your love of “community standards” bear out then? Or what if an aggressively evangelical Christian family moved into a predominately gay neighborhood and was shunned and mistreated for their proselytizing? Would you approve of that?
What I find odd is the belief that somehow equates heterosexuality with morality. I mean Marty do you participate in heterosexual activities because you fear the “wrath” of the community or do you do it because you have a real attraction to the opposite sex? (Something not everyone has)
Do you avoid homosexual activities because you don’t find men particularly interesting or do you do it out of fear?
Is the person that avoids “the sin ” that they are not tempted to do more “moral” than the person is who gives in to temptation? Most of the straight people I know don’t need rules, regulation or community pressure to select which gender they fall in love with. I guess I am different, but why something is done is sometimes just as important as what is done when it comes to morality.
“Radical Islamists were surely watching in July when the Senate voted on procedural grounds to do away with the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is like handing moral weapons of mass destruction to those who use America’s decadence to recruit more snipers and hijackers and suicide bombers.”
The most charitable thing I can say about Colson is that he fancies himself to be a thinker; but, I’m afraid there’s not much there.
This kind of sophistry is the very reason I refuse to give any support to Prison Fellowship. I cannot support an organization (no matter how noble its original aim) that has such a dangerous simpleton as its founder.
Marty, this line of thought is just bizarre. What if a practicing Catholic moved into a predominately Baptist community and was shunned for his religious beliefs? Does your love of “community standards” bear out then? Or what if an aggressively evangelical Christian family moved into a predominately gay neighborhood and was shunned and mistreated for their proselytizing? Would you approve of that?
These examples happen every day in this and other countries. Do i approve of it? No, not really. But i do respect it. One would hope that the Catholic and the Evangelical did also.
These examples happen every day in this and other countries. Do i approve of it? No, not really. But i do respect it. One would hope that the Catholic and the Evangelical did also.
Huh? Why? Or whatever do you mean by “respect it”? I’d sure hope the Catholic didn’t knuckle under and cease to be Catholic, just because of some intolerant set of neighbors who thought Catholics to be unChristian idolators, or whatever. Ditto for the Evangelical. If by “respect it” you mean respect their neighbors free speech right to spout crap, yeah, I’d hope they’d respect their neighbors. But I presumed you to be asking a greater level of “respect” from the gay couple. As in, don’t live together if your neighbors disapprove; don’t ever have gay sex if your neighbors disapprove. Surely you wouldn’t ask the Catholic or the Evangelical to actually consent to follow a neighborhood standard that would prefer they abandon their religion?
At a certain point you do need to follow your conscience (peaceably), whatever your neighborhood standard.
Marty, in fairness I do believe I have an idea as to where you’re coming from on this, but I think what at its core is good intention is getting severly distorted by your ideas about what is and isn’t fair grounds for community enforced standards. Were this discussion about a drug dealer who moved into a neighborhood and was trying to sell crack to the kids, I’d support some application of “community standards.” And we have a mechanism in place to do that. They are called the police. However, we’re not talking about that. It sounds like you are respecting other’s “right” to mistreat people they don’t like because you want to reserve that previledge for yourself should you see the need for it. But you can’t really draw any lines from your standpoint. Your application of community standards can apply to anything from religion to sexual orientation to skin color or any number of things. What is there to respect about that?
Marty, in fairness I do believe I have an idea as to where you’re coming from on this, but I think what at its core is good intention is getting severly distorted by your ideas about what is and isn’t fair grounds for community enforced standards.
In all fairness, i will agree with that completely. I think we got offtrack from the specific examples that we started with, and many of them will require much more thought than i have given them. On one hand, you are correct that tolerance and “love thy neighbor” are perfectly honorable and missing from certain lines of thought i may have inadvertantly opened here, and on the other hand, i think we waste far too much of the police’s time on stupid BS that neighbors can take care of themselves. That said, i’m going to quit this thread and consider the subject in depth offline. Thanks for playing along.
Interesting how the most liberal countries in the world, around Scandinavia haven’t had one terrorist attack yet. Interesting, same sex marriage, low age of conscent for sex, legalised drugs etc. and yet, the Islamic militants haven’t declared war on them. I wonder why?
I’ll tell you why, do you see these Scandinavian countries ram their values and culture down the throats of Islamic countries? of course not. Do you see then conduct uneven foreign policies in the middle east? nope.
The core crux of the problem is the US, its Christian Fundamentalism, its lack of balance in its foreign policy and its insulated, one way culture willingness to export “American Culture” but never embrace culture from outside by putting it under the umberella of “un-Christian” and “different”.
For all the reasons Islamic Terrorists hate the west, Janet Jackson and Gay Marriage aren’t helping one little bit.
And I made an interesting observation just the other day: “In saudi arabia, ALL women are beautiful.” That should make for a thoughtful contrast here in the land of anorexia, bulemia, and botox.
Fascinating, considering the common practice of pederasty in Taliban Afghanistan. The real “decadence” the Taliban, Saudi clerics, and Colson decry is sex between avowed equals. That includes adult homosexuals, but also includes heterosexual marriages where the participants reject the concept of male headship in favor of egalitarian partnership.
You might read Carmen bin Laden’s book about being a western wife of one of the bin Laden brothers. In Saudi Arabia, a lot of women are depressed.
“Fascinating, considering the common practice of pederasty in Taliban Afghanistan.”
Actually, one of the things that drove the Taliban to power was their promise to “take care of” (meaning execute the offenders) the pederasty problem.
The pederasty that occurs is done almost exclusively by heterosexually oriented men who are using boys hovering around the age of puberty as substitutes for women (think about it — at that age, the boys are just about the average size of women — around 5’4, 110 lbs or so).
Why do they need substitutes? Because just about all of the women are sequestered. But like adult homosexuality, this practice is by no means vetted by the Islamofascist Mullahs.
Regarding Janet Jackson:
U.S. TV is positively puritanical in comparison to European and Japanese television.
Regarding gay marriage:
Traditional marriage is a lifelong contract of fidelity between two people. Radical Muslim and Christian activists like Colson seem to want to change that — for example, making marriage a rather brutal political tool of church and state, and handing out unfunded “tax cuts” to the married while burying the unmarried under a $7 trillion national debt.
Observations:
The pederasty that occurs is done almost exclusively by heterosexually oriented men
Homosexual behavior is commonplace in the Islamic world (like everywhere i assume), pederasty or otherwise. But i don’t think anyone from those cultures would consider it an “orientation” by any means, and certainly they would find the idea of too men marrying each other as ridiculous as i do. It seems to be only about getting your rocks off.
Traditional marriage is a lifelong contract of fidelity between two people.
Are you competing for overgeneralization of the year Mike? Or would you settle for oversimplification of the week? Lifelong? Arguable. Fidelity? Arguable. Only two people? Arguable. ANY two “people”? Utterly Absurd — ONLY members of the opposite sex.
I guess redefining the word “marriage” isn’t enough anymore, so now you want to go and tinker with “traditional” too???
Aside from Colson’s troubling embrace of the Pat Robertson/Jerry Fallwell “the evil liberals made God angry so he let 9/11 happen” argument, it is interesting that these “moral” culture warriors never bring up the other ingredient in our supposed decadence – money. It is money, after all, and the relentless pursuit of it for only part of the population, that drives the GOP. It is an overabundance of wealth that allowed the Hilton sisters to become little more than high-spending exibitionists. And it is money that fueled the desire of the Bush Administration to invade Iraq (and develop a breeding ground for future terrorism) and help increase the already sizable wealth of the buddies of George and Dick.
If we want to talk about decadence, let’s talk about a President who has never, ever, been forced to work for anything he’s had – that has made him the arrogant pr*ck he is and fueled the anger and disgust of the rest of the world, Islamic countries included.
And let us not forget it is the pursuit of money and power that drives the leaders of Islamic countries, so they must encourage anti-American hatred to hide the true source of their countries’ problems – the repression of their government.
Funny, Afghanistan was a very Western, and yet Muslim country in the 1970s – it was war, invasion and the resultant loss of material goods that allowed the radical version of Islam (which has NEVER made anyone’s life better)to flourish.
But I guess a nuanced piece actually looking at the reasons for the rise of radical Islam is too difficult – particularly when you can just blame the faggots – right, Marty?
Marty, I agree with you that TV is oversexed, but I think you’re ignoring the causes of TV sex and violence: Profit motive and underregulation. And I get the impression that you agree with Colson and radical Muslims when they argue that individual freedom is a very bad thing.
And I get the impression that you agree with Colson and radical Muslims when they argue that individual freedom is a very bad thing.
Bzzzt – incorrect impression. But since you asked…
Individual Freedom is a Very Good Thing, but without the guiding hand of social responsibility it leads to “every man for himself, if it feels good do it”.
As Doom pointed out, money (greed) and a devil-may-care attitude is what is at fault here. Personally, i beleive that no regulation would be neccesary if people behaved responsibly, and when they did not, they were called to account and publicly shamed by their neighbors. Of course, that just seems so “judgemental and intolerant” in our current anything-goes society.
I beleive people should fear and respect the judgement of their neighbors far more than the judgement of the police and judiciary. These days, too many people fear or respect neither.
“I beleive that no regulation would be necessary if people behaved responsibly”
Are you suggesting that two consenting adults entering into a committed monogamous relationship are not behaving “responsibly”?
Ray, according to the community standard — the values of our neighbors — they are not behaving responsibly.
(Of course i’m assuming that your ‘two consenting adults’ are a same-sex couple — you didn’t say — but even if they were an umarried normal-sex couple, the community would most likely frown on them “shacking up”, expecting them to be married.)
Your definition of “responsibility” will not always jive with the values of your neighbors. The question you have to ask is, will you respect the standards of the community in which you live, or will you disrespect them?
same-sex/opposite-sex, doesn’t matter. If two people want to live together, commit to being responsible/accountable to each other, what’s the problem? Personal/private standards and values do not need to mirror social/public standards in all regards. What matters in society is how members of society treat each other, but in our society we have a thing called ‘liberty’ which allows people to set the limits of their private lives fairly liberally. I could erect a pup-tent and live in it in the middle of Uptown, with campfires, porta-potty, goats and pigs, and all the rest, and the neighbors would be right to be upset for my bringing down the value of the neighboring properties. If I lived with a partner in a home similar to other homes in the area, and we kept it up in a manner fitting the neighborhood, I can’t imagine anyone having a real problem with the fact that we might not be an opposite sex couple, or that our union isn’t recognized by law. “Living together” is become as common as “marriage”, and most folks today acknowledge partered couples as a couple, married or not.
You are correct Ray, in a nation that values personal liberty you are free to honor or disrespect your neighbors as much or as little as you wish.
If I were to be in a committed relationship with another, how it is disrespectful to my neighbors? Would you find it disrespectful if I were in a relationship with someone and we lived next door to you, and on what grounds would the details my private life actually be disrespectful? (assuming we aren’t making love with the windows full open for others to watch or other blatant exhibitionism.)
On the grounds that I and most of my neighbors find it immoral, and we teach our children likewise. Because you, as a fellow neighbor, are living a lifestyle that we abhor, and are exposing our children to the exact opposite of what we have been teaching them, then you serve as an anti-role-model.
Feel free not to respect that if you must. Just don’t be suprised when your neighbors shun you, stigmatize you, and hold you up as an example of what-not-to-do for our children. Peer pressure is how community standards are best enforced.
What’re you’re forgetting Marty, is that respect for your neighbours is a two-way street. If a religious fundamentalist were to move next door to me and my boyfriend and lambaste me about the evils of our relationship, well not only would that be disrespectful, but intruding and immoral as well.
Not only that, Start realizing that many (and soon becoming a majority) of us find that a majority of people that share your views are extremely negative role-models. I certainly wouldn’t want to expose my children to the “fire and brimstone” diatribe religious conservatives spew and I certainly wouldn’t want my neighbours intruding into my family life.
By all means, you’re free to hold any view you wish, but don’t expect me or anyone, be they queer or even straight, to fit into your narrow mould of how the world is supposed to function. If someone finds it disrespectful about me holding hands with my bf in public, well that person should realize I find it even more disrespectful that such person protests against something that isn’t of his or her business.
Ah… now you’re implying that mob rule against neighbours is a good idea. Isn’t that what got the people of Sodom into trouble? Not that I’d think you’d engage in middle-eastern style gang rape, but the concept of being inhospitable to your neighbours does apply.
Peer pressure is all the more reason to live our lives openly, since we have nothing to be ashamed of. It is a good thing to show the next generation that not only does exclusionary, narrow-minded bigotry not work, it is built on things that aren’t true. It is a good thing for kids to see men and women, men and men, women and women holding hands and showing common affection in public (not groping or making out in the public streets, but a genuine warm hug and kiss when appropriate, for example), because it’s a non-issue and does no harm to a child to see that genuine love is acceptable in all its forms.
I wouldn’t want my children (I have 4) or grandchildren (I’ve been given six, so far) thinking it’s okay to criticize others just for being different.
You can consider me an “anti-role model” for your own beliefs, but I’m not responsible for conforming to your beliefs or limiting the expressions of my life in order to spare your children from reality. I’d rather be a role model of honesty and decency toward all people. I suspect the harm isn’t in showing kids that others live differently, but that they’d discover you weren’t fully honest with them about other people. (Perhaps honest in your sincerity and belief, but not honest in your facts about homosexuality and people who are gay.)
I can’t wait to hear what “facts” you are talking about Ray, but alas, we’ve abused this thread enough already. I’m sure our paths will cross again, on this fine blog or mine, where we do little else but debate the factuality of such “facts”.
Actually, most of my neighbors would be fine with Ray and some other guy, in a committed relationship with each other, moving in next door. Some of them might prefer that the pair use the new California domestic partner law, rather than that California law be changed to allow them to actually marry, but few would feel disrespected by the fact that they were living together as a couple. And most of the people at my church (a liberal Quaker meeting) would be fine with the pair showing up together at meeting, as a couple. And would accept them if they wanted to be married in the care of the meeting. So, according to Marty’s principle that everyone should respect the community standard, I guess if Ray comes to live in my community, he’s living responsibly.
I’m all in favor of enforcing community standards by peer pressure rather than making laws; I just note that the result may be favorable to Marty’s values in some communities, but not in others. And peer pressure does, of course, work both ways.
I’ll keep that in mind if I decide to leave New Orleans and need to shop for an inclusive and welcoming community (and church). In my current reality of course, I don’t know if having a partner is merely hypothetical or completely moot … but maybe if I move to a better community, my status might fare better as well. 🙂
Colson and other antigay activists are betting that, when the sequel to September 11 occurs, the American people will be even more eager to scapegoat gay people than they have been during the battles to constitutionally ban gay civil unions and to ban gay adoption and revoke gay participation in existing antidiscrimination laws.
Colson et al are probably right. And they may yet achieve their desired bloodbath.
Terrorist events are the sole fault of the terrorists who commit the attacks. And fundamentalist terrorism is not confined to Islam. As the Southern Poverty Law Center often notes, Christian extremists also participate in terrorism.
Those who blame anyone but the terrorists merely aid and abet terrorism while excusing and justifying the slaughter of innocent people.
Marty:
“On the grounds that I and most of my neighbors find it immoral, and we teach our children likewise. Because you, as a fellow neighbor, are living a lifestyle that we abhor, and are exposing our children to the exact opposite of what we have been teaching them, then you serve as an anti-role-model.
Feel free not to respect that if you must. Just don’t be suprised when your neighbors shun you, stigmatize you, and hold you up as an example of what-not-to-do for our children. Peer pressure is how community standards are best enforced.”
Marty, this line of thought is just bizarre. What if a practicing Catholic moved into a predominately Baptist community and was shunned for his religious beliefs? Does your love of “community standards” bear out then? Or what if an aggressively evangelical Christian family moved into a predominately gay neighborhood and was shunned and mistreated for their proselytizing? Would you approve of that?
What I find odd is the belief that somehow equates heterosexuality with morality. I mean Marty do you participate in heterosexual activities because you fear the “wrath” of the community or do you do it because you have a real attraction to the opposite sex? (Something not everyone has)
Do you avoid homosexual activities because you don’t find men particularly interesting or do you do it out of fear?
Is the person that avoids “the sin ” that they are not tempted to do more “moral” than the person is who gives in to temptation? Most of the straight people I know don’t need rules, regulation or community pressure to select which gender they fall in love with. I guess I am different, but why something is done is sometimes just as important as what is done when it comes to morality.
From Colson’s article:
“Radical Islamists were surely watching in July when the Senate voted on procedural grounds to do away with the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is like handing moral weapons of mass destruction to those who use America’s decadence to recruit more snipers and hijackers and suicide bombers.”
The most charitable thing I can say about Colson is that he fancies himself to be a thinker; but, I’m afraid there’s not much there.
This kind of sophistry is the very reason I refuse to give any support to Prison Fellowship. I cannot support an organization (no matter how noble its original aim) that has such a dangerous simpleton as its founder.
Brett,
Marty, this line of thought is just bizarre. What if a practicing Catholic moved into a predominately Baptist community and was shunned for his religious beliefs? Does your love of “community standards” bear out then? Or what if an aggressively evangelical Christian family moved into a predominately gay neighborhood and was shunned and mistreated for their proselytizing? Would you approve of that?
These examples happen every day in this and other countries. Do i approve of it? No, not really. But i do respect it. One would hope that the Catholic and the Evangelical did also.
These examples happen every day in this and other countries. Do i approve of it? No, not really. But i do respect it. One would hope that the Catholic and the Evangelical did also.
Huh? Why? Or whatever do you mean by “respect it”? I’d sure hope the Catholic didn’t knuckle under and cease to be Catholic, just because of some intolerant set of neighbors who thought Catholics to be unChristian idolators, or whatever. Ditto for the Evangelical. If by “respect it” you mean respect their neighbors free speech right to spout crap, yeah, I’d hope they’d respect their neighbors. But I presumed you to be asking a greater level of “respect” from the gay couple. As in, don’t live together if your neighbors disapprove; don’t ever have gay sex if your neighbors disapprove. Surely you wouldn’t ask the Catholic or the Evangelical to actually consent to follow a neighborhood standard that would prefer they abandon their religion?
At a certain point you do need to follow your conscience (peaceably), whatever your neighborhood standard.
Marty, in fairness I do believe I have an idea as to where you’re coming from on this, but I think what at its core is good intention is getting severly distorted by your ideas about what is and isn’t fair grounds for community enforced standards. Were this discussion about a drug dealer who moved into a neighborhood and was trying to sell crack to the kids, I’d support some application of “community standards.” And we have a mechanism in place to do that. They are called the police. However, we’re not talking about that. It sounds like you are respecting other’s “right” to mistreat people they don’t like because you want to reserve that previledge for yourself should you see the need for it. But you can’t really draw any lines from your standpoint. Your application of community standards can apply to anything from religion to sexual orientation to skin color or any number of things. What is there to respect about that?
Marty, in fairness I do believe I have an idea as to where you’re coming from on this, but I think what at its core is good intention is getting severly distorted by your ideas about what is and isn’t fair grounds for community enforced standards.
In all fairness, i will agree with that completely. I think we got offtrack from the specific examples that we started with, and many of them will require much more thought than i have given them. On one hand, you are correct that tolerance and “love thy neighbor” are perfectly honorable and missing from certain lines of thought i may have inadvertantly opened here, and on the other hand, i think we waste far too much of the police’s time on stupid BS that neighbors can take care of themselves. That said, i’m going to quit this thread and consider the subject in depth offline. Thanks for playing along.
Interesting how the most liberal countries in the world, around Scandinavia haven’t had one terrorist attack yet. Interesting, same sex marriage, low age of conscent for sex, legalised drugs etc. and yet, the Islamic militants haven’t declared war on them. I wonder why?
I’ll tell you why, do you see these Scandinavian countries ram their values and culture down the throats of Islamic countries? of course not. Do you see then conduct uneven foreign policies in the middle east? nope.
The core crux of the problem is the US, its Christian Fundamentalism, its lack of balance in its foreign policy and its insulated, one way culture willingness to export “American Culture” but never embrace culture from outside by putting it under the umberella of “un-Christian” and “different”.