Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
As you know part of my contribution as a guest blogger has been the fact that I write much from personal experience. This particular blog is one that I’ve thought about for awhile and have had some trepidation in writing because as you will see it touches on a very sensitive topic for most males. As a boy coming of age in the 1950’s one of the unvoiced, but omnipresent topics was male homosexuality. For a male growing up in that period, among the most upsetting epithets you could be called was queer. This was especially disturbing for those entering puberty, which in the 50’s context was coming into the macho essence of your own self worth. If you were queer you were deemed to be less of a male, a wimp, a fag and most essentially a loathsome pervert who did disgusting things with other males. People were bullied and beaten at school while being called degrading names. Even though I was always big for my age, I was a gentle and sensitive boy and while when attacked I would always fight back, I would be throwing punches through tears of frustration and rage at the injustice of it all. As I cried and fought, all those demeaning epithets would be hurled at me by the jeering bystanders. If I had the temerity to be winning, then other boys would attack me from behind. Finally, a teacher or Administrator would break it up, many times though my rescuer would sneer at the fact that my crying was “unmanly”.
At the same time in the 50’s, stories would occasionally appear in the papers and TV, of police raiding homosexual nightclubs and arresting the participants for engaging in lewd acts. These stories were always couched in vague terminology since homosexuality was such a sensitive topic, indeed most discussions of sexuality in general were not considered decent topics for open discussion in the media. Even though my parents were very open about sexuality for the time and I was told the “facts of life” at a young age, they never discussed homosexuality with me. To be honest I never asked because my father was what you would call a “Man’s Man”, or “hale fellow well met”. He was large and had a history as a brawler in his youth. I wanted to be like him have his respect, so although I could ask him anything about sex, I never asked him about homosexuality. Taboo subjects interested me. The mystique surrounding homosexuality perked my interest. Through reading and from Freud, I tried to get a handle on what this strange “perversion” was and why it was considered so bad that it needed the intervention of law enforcement. My attraction was always towards women, but I wanted to understand why some men (and some women) were attracted to the same sex. There simply wasn’t enough information at the time to give me any sort of understanding and Freud’s position was among the least helpful. What I did know is that having been called queer and fag, knowing how it hurt, my empathy for those who were homosexual and how they were treated increased. It is the question of do you side with the oppressors, or the oppressed? What moved me to finally write this piece was a story out of Louisiana in the Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/louisiana-police-sting-gay-men-anti-sodomy-law_n_3668116.html It is about the Sheriff’s Office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana that has arrested at least a dozen men since 2011 for agreeing to have consensual sex with undercover police officers. What makes this case so bizarre for these times, yet so familiar when its law enforcement dealing with homosexuality, is that they were arrested under a law that had been declared unconstitutional?
“In all of the cases, the men were arrested under the state’s anti-sodomy law, which was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.
“Technically invalid yet still on the books, the state’s “Crime Against Nature” law prohibits “unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same-sex or opposite-sex or with an animal” along with “solicitation by a human being of another with the intent to engage in any unnatural carnal copulation for compensation,” according to Louisiana legislature.
“This is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature,” Casey Rayborn Hicks, a Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman, told the Baton Rouge Advocate. “Whether the law is valid is something for the courts to determine, but the sheriff will enforce the laws that are enacted.”
However, the Advocate also revealed that none of these cases had been prosecuted by District Attorney Hillar Moore III, whose office could find no evidence of any crime being committed by any of the arrested men.”
Obviously, District Attorney Moore had more common sense than the Sheriff’s Office that formulated the “sting”. The statement by Mr. Hicks is thoroughly disingenuous to say the least. Knowing the “law on the books” was unconstitutional they did it anyway as their way of harassing gay men and most probably because of their own distaste for homosexuality. Before SCOTUS rulings such as Lawrence v. Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas , all over this country the police were harassing members of the LGBT community. Some of this harassment was done because of the predominant religious mores of the particular community and some was done because by nature many police officers and District Attorneys in the U.S. see themselves as macho defenders of justice and more importantly public morals.
Even today when being Gay has been favorably portrayed in the media, when there are beloved Gay celebrities and when SCOTUS has ruled in favor of Gay Marriage, there are many who are horrified by the notion of homosexuality and consider it evil. Many of these people are in positions of power today and the vileness, to me at least; of their statements railing against the notion of Gay Rights proliferate even though those rights are now being recognized as Constitutional guarantees. Below are some links that will give you an idea of the amount of anti-gay bigotry that is hysterically increasing in the face of this country becoming far more accepting of people’s inherent right to their sexual preference.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/41549/10-craziest-michele-bachmann-anti-gay-quotes
There are many more quotations available, but let me point out that two of those links refer to people who were contenders for the GOP Presidential nomination and other was from a sitting Supreme Court Justice. Clearly the battle for the human rights of the LBGT community is far from over, even though much progress has been made. The fact is there are many in the United States that for religious reasons, personal prejudice and preference will keep battling against what seems to be a rising tide. I write this to emphasize that it is not time to rest in this issue which to me has an importance far beyond just the issue of who consenting adults have sex with. I have written before about the threat that religion of the extreme fundamentalist stripe creates towards the idea of democracy. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/05/morsi-democracy-and-problem-with-fundamentalist-politics/ . This blowback by religionists is taking place in many regions of the world.
“MOSCOW — A new law banning “homosexual propaganda” in Russia is raising concerns about the state of human rights in a country already notorious for silencing dissent.
The legislation is vague but its intent is clear: It is now “illegal to spread information about non-traditional sexual behavior” to minors (under 18), and there are hefty fines for those who disobey. Foreigners are also subject to fines and can be deported.” http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/27/19699629-homosexual-propaganda-law-signals-latest-russian-crackdown?lite
This crackdown in Russia is now being pushed to further extremes and affects visitors there:
“In an even wider crackdown in Russia over expressions of homosexuality, gay athletes and fans will be prohibited from displays of affection and the wearing of pro-homosexual rainbow pins and badges during the 2014 Olympics. Violators face steep fines and jail time, foreigners will face similar penalties plus deportation.” http://www.catholic.org/sports/story.php?id=51935
Much of this Russian zeal to crackdown on homosexuals stems from pressure coming from the Russian Orthodox Church upon Putin and other Russian officialdom. In post Communist Russia the Orthodox Church has been a major player and has undergone a tremendous resurgence. It has definitely been an important political player and Putin et. al. have courted their support. The Russian Orthodox Church probably outdoes the Catholic Church in its opposition to homosexuality. However, homophobia in Russia has a long history and in 1933 Stalin also came down hard on homosexuals and led one of his characteristic purges.
“In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy. The law remained intact until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; it was repealed in 1993.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_homosexuality
On Friday Professor Turley even posted a blog about the situation in Russia. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/08/02/russian-gays-forced-to-drink-urine-and-beaten-as-part-of-cure-by-nationalist-thugs/
Another example of “legal” homophobia around the world are the attacks on homosexuals by various African Governments and the draconian penalties for being homosexual that are being imposed:
“More than two-thirds of African countries have laws criminalizing homosexual acts, and despite accounting for a significant percentage of new infections in many countries, men who have sex with men tend to be left out of the HIV response.” http://www.irinnews.org/report/87793
As we can see there is still significant oppression of homosexuals around the world and I haven’t even gotten into the dangerous situations in many other countries for those who don’t meet the standard heterosexual criteria. In the U.S. Russia’s anti-homosexual laws have drawn praise from a source that seems a surprise, but then again maybe not a surprise at all:
“As the hub of the Soviet Union, Russia was reviled for rights abuses by many U.S. conservatives during the Cold War. Now some are voicing support and admiration as Russian authorities crack down on gay-rights activism. The latest step drawing praise from social conservatives is a bill signed into law Sunday by President Vladimir Putin that would impose hefty fines for holding gay pride rallies or providing information about the gay community to minors.
“You admire some of the things they’re doing in Russia against propaganda,” said Austin Ruse, president of the U.S.-based Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. “On the other hand, you know it would be impossible to do that here.” Ruse, whose institute is seeking accreditation at the United Nations, plans to travel to Russia this summer to meet with government officials and civic leaders. “We want to let them know they do in fact have support among American NGOs (non-governmental organizations) on social issues,” he said.
Among others commending Russia’s anti-gay efforts was Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.”Russians do not want to follow America’s reckless and decadent promotion of gender confusion, sexual perversion, and anti-biblical ideologies to youth,” LaBarbera said on his website.
In a sign of Russia’s evolving stature among some U.S. social conservatives, the Illinois-based World Congress of Families plans to hold its eighth international conference at the Kremlin’s Palace of Congresses in Moscow next year. Past conferences in Europe, Mexico and Australia have brought together opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage from dozens of countries.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/russia-anti-gay-bill_n_3530050.html
My premise is that the battle for the right to be of different sexual orientation is a subset of the battle to impose a religious based morality on people under the color of law. The issue of Gay rights is just one aspect of this threat. It has assumed almost a center stage in the battle to theocratize governments because for males all over the world, the idea of not being “man enough” hits at the core of their being. I reject the whole concept that a male’s self worth should be tied up in his sexual preferences and experiences. Many who have known me view me in macho terms. As the son of a “man’s man” I learned how to interact with other males and can talk sports, cars and women with the best of them. There is a swagger to my walk and with my height and large head many friends called and call me “Big Mike”. I played many sports and while never a good athlete I was competent as a player. Those who really know me best though see my more sensitive, feminine and in many ways better side. I’m a bit of a gossip; I love Broadway Musicals; loved Judy Garland and Peter Allen and I cry copiously in both joy and sorrow. Yes those are clichés used regarding Gay men, but these clichés apply to me as well.
I believe that for the human race finally to learn to live together peacefully and harmoniously we need to learn to stop making these distinctions about what is the natural state for perhaps ten percent of all of humans and indeed animals. Our sexual drives are complex and the need to satisfy our sexual urges is what drives us to interact with others. Sexuality needs to be viewed in its true sense as a spectrum of responses humans make in the search for pleasure and fulfillment. A good part of sexuality is curiosity and indeed one of the reasons humans have progressed so far is that we have an insatiable curiosity. This leads me to my own confession which I alluded to in the title and in my opening of this blog. In the 60’s and in the early 70’s I was an active participant in what was known as the sexual revolution. For the homosexual community the opening battle for their rights could be said to have occurred in the Stonewall Riots. I had many gay friends and acquaintances when those protests began on June 28th 1969. I even knew some who directly participated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
When news of the protests reached the media I cried in joy at the unity in fighting back against police repression and the corruption it engendered. In the following days I shared the sense of triumph coming from those protests with my Gay friends. To me looking back this was the opening shot of the fight for Gay freedom. Since I was so openly a supporter of freedom from oppression for the Gay community it was inevitable that a few years later one of my Gay male friends would proposition me. That this occurred was well known in my social group and there was good natured pressure on me to at least give it a try. This pressure arose partly because at the time I was involved in a ménage with two women and they playfully taunted me that what was good for the goose, was good for the gander. It was with much fear and trepidation that I took my male friend up on his offer. My experience was a good one and there was pleasure to be had, but it also confirmed for me that my sexual preference was for the female body. So it goes and it matters not if it had led me on a different relationship path. It was said back in the day that one could be a married man for years, but if a man had even one homosexual experience he was a queer. That is frankly nonsense and is believed by ignorant people. Admittedly I gave into peer pressure and in a sense I can’t claim that my experiment was one of courage, but I would also be lying if I denied that I was curious about the difference between gay and straight sex. The truth is that there is really very little difference except body structure and the limits that imposes. The underlying reality though is that normal human interaction between individuals doesn’t differ to any great degree and depends primarily on the personality of the participants. I look back upon my experiments in sexuality with warmth and a certain amount of pride that I was able to satisfy my curiosity along with the pleasure it brought.
However, that is not my point. What one does with their sexuality, provided it is consensual and among peers, is nobody’s business but that of the participants. One’s sexuality neither defines ones character, nor does it define one’s self worth. Those “paragons” of morality, who would call those whose sexual practices don’t conform to their own “evil,” are to my mind somewhat crazy. Why should any of us care how people get their pleasure as long as it harms no one?
In many places of the world, in many eras of civilization’s long history, religion has made sexuality a target of hatred. Some, but certainly not all religions target sexuality as a means of gaining political power. In many eras through history religion and government have had a symbiotic relationship, with religious belief being used to assist the powers that be in retaining their power and their positions atop a society’s hierarchy. We see in the Gospels of Christianity for instance a Jesus who disdains wealth, abjures the rich and would even break bread with those looked down upon by society. Jesus never once deals with homosexuality. Yet the Roman Catholic Church began under the control of the Roman Emperor and so the emphasis of Jesus strictures to “turn the other cheek” or the difficulties of a rich man getting into Heaven were downplayed and the Pentateuch’s sexual rigidity was brought to the forefront. I don’t mean to single out Christianity in this respect, because we see the same pattern existing in all great religions. Economic disparity and oppression are hard to justify morally and certainly would put any religion on a collision course with the elite’s power that they seek to share, so sexuality becomes an easy focus. Those with political power and wealth don’t mind sexual repression since it never interferes with their own pleasures and it certainly helps to keep the common folk down. Since most places throughout human history have been dominated by Alpha Males repression of homosexuality has found approval, but no more so than repression of women’s rights. The irony is that some of the most “Alpha” of males like the Spartan Army and Alexander The Great were probably gay, or at the least “Bi”. Then of course they were pagans and in many of those religions sexuality was of little import.
The prejudice against the LBGT community is a real evil that we face simply because it is a prejudice against the reality of human nature. To demonize people for their sexuality, their sex, the color of their skin or for their ethnicity is the real evil in this world. I support, nay demand, full citizenship rights for the LBGT community and if in your opposition to that natural state you want to call me queer, go right ahead, I’ll wear the mantle proudly.
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
Those tales go back into the dim mists of time, in the oral tradition. Read Joseph Campbell’s, “Hero With a Thousand Faces.” The names and scenes change with the time, but the meme is the same as it has been around campfires for thousands of years. Campbell summed up the main theme of hero legends succinctly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell
@TonyC:
Darn, I could swear I heard some of what you just said somewhere else. In a book maybe??? OH! Here it is!
12-13 If you sin without knowing what you’re doing, God takes that into account. But if you sin knowing full well what you’re doing, that’s a different story entirely. Merely hearing God’s law is a waste of your time if you don’t do what he commands. Doing, not hearing, is what makes the difference with God.
14-16 When outsiders who have never heard of God’s law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God’s law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God’s yes and no, right and wrong. Their response to God’s yes and no will become public knowledge on the day God makes his final decision about every man and woman. The Message from God that I proclaim through Jesus Christ takes into account all these differences.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202&version=MSG
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Warspite: Without Religion presenting a fully-formed set of moral and ethical beliefs, most people will not be able to come up with them.
That just isn’t true. All of sociology and psychological study puts the lie to that; people inherently can process new scenarios involving made-up words for objects, emotions, and states and still come up with right vs wrong. In essence, they consider something “right” if it sounds fair, and consider something wrong if it sounds unfair. Time and again.
Without religion people would not be at a loss, they know when agreements are not kept, when punishment is too harsh or too light, when advantage is taken and charity is given. People would be just fine without religion. When you feel slighted or cheated or phucked over, you do not have a Bible quotation in mind that tells you that you have been slighted or cheated or phucked over. You just frikkin’ know when you are treated unfairly, when your expectations are not met, when you “got robbed” and paid for something you did not get. The Bible doesn’t tell you that, your brain tells you that because it is an expectation engine, tip to tail, and when reality meets your expectations it creates emotions of satisfaction and happiness and “rightness,” in varying degrees. If reality wildly exceeds your expectations the emotions can be elation or joy. When reality falls short of expectations the brain creates emotions of distress, anger, frustration, irritation and “wrongness,” in varying degrees (and sometimes panic or alarm).
We don’t need religion to tell us right from wrong, it is built into our biology, into our emotional centers.
Warspite: And, on the subject of TV, what about “A Charlie Brown Christmas”, “The Grinch Who Stole Christmas”, and even that one about Rudolf “narrated” by Burl Ives? Without Christianity, none would exist.
Sure they would, those are all pagan tales, and paganism existed long before Christianity. Christians co-opted the Winter Solstice celebration from Christians; that is why it is filled with Pagan symbols you won’t find anywhere in the Bible: Pagans brought evergreen branches into the house, sometimes in wreaths, to bring the forever-young tree (because the evergreen, in pagan myth, is always green because it is always in the spring of its life).
The candle flames that became Christmas lights were spirits to the Pagans; Santa Claus really was a benevolent elf, and the flying reindeer were his magical animals. Snowmen really had a spirit; in its essence the story of Frosty would have been taken as a documentary by Pagans in 1000 BC.
You see, even without the actual belief of the pagans in wood spirits, lake spirits, mountain spirits and river spirits, their stories of magic and conscious nature were refined for hundreds of generations, and that refinement left them entertaining and memorable far beyond their original purpose of educating the young about they ways of the world.
The Grinch’s redemption story is touching, as all well written redemption stories are. Frosty the Snowman’s story may still jerk a tear of grief at the departure of a best friend.
But these are pagan stories, and we can enjoy pagan ritual and pomp without being pagans. We can kiss our darling under the mistletoe; also a pagan icon magically green in winter with the red buds spurring the heat of love.
We can celebrate Easter in the same spirit: Send our pagan children into the new spring fields, with their baskets lined with grass, to hunt for the various colored eggs of birds and bring them back for the first spring feast. Find and catch the young and inexperienced bunnies, we will have rabbit and eggs, a feast of fresh protein to break the monotonous vegetable fast of winter.
Now we have the Easter Egg hunt, the baskets, the grass to cushion the eggs, and turn that bunny into another magical gift bringer. Nobody has to believe they are real, just have some fun.
Nobody has to believe a movie is real to be moved to tears by it, or moved to laughter that won’t stop. Stories are uniquely human, we do not have to believe them for them to be powerful. We do not need religion to have stories, to have fun, and to believe there is something true in the story about the human condition, even if we do not for a second believe in the literalness of Grinches and Whos.
Mike S.: Thank you for sharing that.
Mike S.,
Sandy Rios, Conservative Radio Host, Links Gay Love To Ariel Castro Rape And Torture
The Huffington Post
By Cavan Sieczkowski
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/04/sandy-rios-gay-ariel-castro_n_3704253.html
Excerpt:
A conservative radio host linked lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) love to the “love” Ohio kidnapper and rapist Ariel Castro had for his victims while discussing her opposition towards the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Sandy Rios, American Family Association talk show host and Fox News contributor, broached the topic of same-sex marriage while speaking with Chicago anti-gay pastor Erwin Lutzer last week, Right Wing Watch notes. Lutzer said one opposition against same-sex marriage is that the city’s crime is bad enough and they don’t need the “destruction of marriage” as well.
The two also agreed that love shouldn’t be reason enough to allow same-sex couples to marry.
“A pedophile I’m sure says that he loves children — as a matter of fact, he does — but you can see how destructive that love is,” Lutzer said. “Once love is undefined as kind of this ‘I want to do this and so I’m loving’ then, of course, we end up where we are ending up today with a great slide in morality, the destruction of the family, the confusion that children grow up with. All of these implications…”
“You know, the gentleman that was just sentenced yesterday for holding those women hostage in Ohio, and molesting them for years, and doing terrible things to them,” Rios continued, “His defense was that he ‘loved’ his family, he ‘loved’ his child that was born out of one of the rapes that he did of the woman. He ‘loved’ and he couldn’t understand. He said, ‘I’m not a monster.’”
Elaine,
People like Ms. Rios are beginning to become hysterical with what they see is destroying their world. This piece was written to warn that the battle for Gay rights is far from over. We can see that fact in light of some of the comments on this thread.
Elaine – Rios comments were completely appropriate. If we are going to define marriage based upon love and liberty alone, it will destroy marriage. Her linkage of the gay marriage agenda with guys like Ariel Castro is spot on. What is sad is the number of emotional people who cannot see the logic of this point.
MikeS:
Who’s really being the adolescent here??? You said: “However, because you believe something doesn’t give you, or anyone else for that matter, the right to use laws to suppress conduct that you don’t find appropriate.”
Sure it does. We do it all the time. “We” disapprove of adult-child sex, for a blunt example, and we use our laws to suppress that conduct. “We” don’t approve of pornography, sooo we don’t let folks air it on FCC type television. “We” don’t approve of prostitution. Or, people under 21 drinking alcohol. Or drugs. Or phony financial statements, etc. etc. etc.
So, no. You can stomp your feet, and hold your breath until you turn blue, but frankly, the whole point of the law is to suppress conduct that” we” don’t find appropriate. Which necessitates moral judgement.
Attitudes may change over time and “we” may change our minds. When it comes to gay marriage or gay sex, it isn’t that society doesn’t have the “right” to suppress it, but whether society wishes to continue to suppress it. And because there is a whole range of sexual conduct, and marriage possibilities, that are impacted by such a decision, some of us are not in the same rush as all the “sophisticated, cosmopolitan, open-minded, and tolerant” people are. People who struggle with the issue of whether it is OK for aunts and nephews to have sex, for example.
Here, you have not addressed the really bad impacts of casual gay sex, or exactly what harm was caused by the arrest of the Baton Rouge 11. Perhaps you can do a follow-up post titled, “Call Me A Hooker” where you can discuss how terrible it is for the popo to interfere with the financial operations of your average hooker, in violation of her alleged rights to use her body how she wishes??? Or, maybe “Call Me A Pusher.”
It is quite possible that the Baton Rouge cops saved a gay life or two in the process, if the arrestees become a little more careful about which stranger they are trying to have casual sex with. Far be it from me to be disrespectful to my elders, but perhaps you just need to reconsider your initial premise. Because I think it was prompted by a sincere desire to do right by people, but actually just degenerates into one more excuse for people to destroy their own lives.
Which is fine as far as making a libertarian type argument, something akin to “people have the right to commit suicide.” But not something you want to do if you are going to sermonize about people who disagree and ask God to damn them. Or maybe you just need a better example than 11 gay creeps out trying to hook up with people they just met.
As far as any of my sex acts, they do not require visqueen on the mattress or burning the sheets afterwards.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“11 gay creeps”, “Baton Rouge Cops saving a life “, my sex acts”don’t require burning the sheets afterward”
Squeeky,
You don’t like gay people, just admit it. To my mind you’re a bigot. In yours you are merely saving society from the “gay scourge”. To me you seem merely a person who lacks empathy for those you despise due to your religious beliefs. I pity your lack of insight and your prejudice, but defend your right to the expression of your beliefs. However, as much as you may rationalize your thoughts they have no place in our legal system any more than “Jim Crow” did. The same distaste and misinformation you profess has been aimed at other minorities throughout history. The common thread is an attitude like yours that de-humanizes the objects of your disdain. Your parents haven’t done you any service in teaching you to look down on others your religion hates. There is obviously no room for you to at least “hate the sin, love the person “. You just hate, sadly.
Mike Spindell wrote to Squeeky: “To my mind you’re a bigot. In yours you are merely saving society from the “gay scourge”. To me you seem merely a person who lacks empathy for those you despise due to your religious beliefs. I pity your lack of insight and your prejudice, but defend your right to the expression of your beliefs. However, as much as you may rationalize your thoughts they have no place in our legal system any more than “Jim Crow” did.”
Woe… hold on. Now you have gone into the gutter of ad hominem name calling.
The point she is making is that we make moral judgments in regards to defining the law. It is perhaps your own preconceived notions that now cause hatred to arise in your heart toward Squeeky.
In regards to the Louisiana bust, the law applies to both same sex and opposite sex encounters. What if the arrests were made on women approaching these male officers? We probably would not hear a word about it because it does not further the gay agenda. You would have never mentioned it because it would not further your cause. Same law, but different specifics that would not allow it to be spun in your favor.
Has it never occurred to you that some of us are very concerned about the harm that the gay lifestyle causes to those who enter it? Don’t you realize how many will be infected with AIDS? How many are going to suffer excessive mental issues like depression which leads them to commit suicide at a higher rate than others? I realize that you think that higher suicide rate is caused by society not accepting them, but others in society like me believe that it is completely unrelated to societal acceptance. We believe that their fighting so hard for societal acceptance and approval is simply a product of the internal turmoil caused by them engaging in homosexual behavior. Heterosexual promiscuity causes the same kinds of problems, so most honest heterosexuals know this all too well.
My point is that you should never ASSUME that just because people like me or Squeeky define sexual immorality in a different way from you, that just because we might see the gay agenda more insidious than you do, that somehow that means we don’t care for them. The real motivating factor is that we do care for them, and especially for those young people who are questioning their sexuality and have this barrage of therapists and professionals coaxing them into homosexuality, telling them that it is perfectly normal and they will be happy if they explore their sexuality to find out who they are. It is the same with the abortion issue, where we have professionals coaxing young girls into abortion, not once telling them of the mental anguish and problems they will suffer for years as they think about how they killed their unborn baby. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend they don’t exist, like OS does denying the reality of ex-gays, but people like Squeeky and me are involved in the lives of many people like this and know first hand what is really going on, despite what you professionals teach everyone.
“Has it never occurred to you that some of us are very concerned about the harm that the gay lifestyle causes to those who enter it?”
DavidM,
Of course it has occurred to me and my best heartfelt advice is to caution you and others who feel that way not to have Gay relationships. Also to stop interfering with other peoples consensual sexual desires among peers.
Mike Spindell wrote: “… my best heartfelt advice is to caution you and others who feel that way not to have Gay relationships. Also to stop interfering with other peoples consensual sexual desires among peers.”
Mike, I am trying to get a handle on just how sexually liberated you are. Please bear with me on this question, because I am being sincere and I am trying hard to understand your perspective. My perspective is that we care for our neighbor, gay or straight, and that we offer thoughtful advice that we believe is in their best interest.
Suppose you have a friend approach you about his daughter who just turned 18. He tells you that his daughter has gotten involved with friends who are strippers at a local bar. His daughter has started stripping there, and they have a private room in the back where men and women will pay to have private time with her. Many of the men will pay lots of money to have all types of sex with her back in the private room. So she is asking her dad now what he thinks about it. Her dad initially thinks it is not safe for her, but she feels it is safe because the strip bar has bouncers who will protect her. She wants to have frequent sex, many times a night, with many different strange men and sometimes strange women. Her reason for doing this is to earn money. Her dad tells you that he is concerned about it. He thinks that psychologically, it might mess with her mind and even damage her in a way that would not happen if she did not take this job. He also is worried about her increasing her risk for STD. Her dad really doesn’t want her to do it, but he is looking to you for advice. What do you tell him? Do you tell him, “stop interfering with other peoples consensual sexual desires among peers.”
“My perspective is that we care for our neighbor, gay or straight, and that we offer thoughtful advice that we believe is in their best interest.”
David,
With all due deference given your statements above this one is nonsense. As for the example you provided below it that is a contrivance that doesn’t speak to the issue. Beyond that if you remember I speak of adults in consensual peer relationships. You play games with specifics and asked me how sexually liberated I am and I will answer in this way. Given the information you provided about your own sexual experiences I am far more sexually liberated than you are and certainly far more sexually experienced. Via graduate and post graduate training, plus my training as a psychotherapist I am far more qualified to counsel people about sexuality. By the way the State certified and regulated Psychotherapy Institute I graduated from was run by a renown Psychotherapist who believed that homosexuality was pathology and disagreed with the DSM’s removing it from the list. This was in the 70’s, so I can assure you even in therapy training I was exposed to both sides of the issue. My mentor was as wrong about homosexuality as you are and I believe later changed her opinion.
Squeeky:
Some good points, yes.
But in the end it should be about live and let live. Of course personal responsibility needs to be included it that idea.
MikeS:
You asked: “Are you really unaware of how on a given night there are far more heterosexual people having casual unprotected sex than Gay people? Are you aware that in the “oh so religious bible Belt there are more unmarried pregnancies than in any other part of the country and that goes for STD’s as well.”
Oh, heck yes I am aware of this. Which is I find the arrest of the “Baton Rouge 11” sooo totally unremarkable. I am also aware of the number hetero hookers and johns who get arrested by undercover cops.
What I am not sure about, is the source of your moral ambivalence. You obviously know that cheesy behavior had bad results, ala STDs and unmarried pregnancies. Tthe heteros are out-bad-sexing the gays strictly on a number basis, yet percentage wise, the gays are getting a wildly disproportionate amount of the virus.
Which would indicate to me that cheesy gay sex is particularly dangerous to them. What is even more disturbing, is that gay men in “committed relationships” are a greater risk of HIV than those in non-committed status. Which was in the Hoff thingy I found the other day. All of which would indicate a crying need for persons who believe in the power of sex education, such as you indicated in a reply up above, to really ratchet up the teaching to gays.
However, many people here view any “moralizing” by persons such as myself as horrible, and in need of damnation by God. I wonder if I have stumbled by accident into The Josef Mengele School of Ethics, wherein death by social experimentation is somehow a good thing???
Personally, I would rather be perceived as homophobic or whatever, if what I write would keep some gay idiot from engaging in an encounter with a stranger. Which it probably won’t. But, I certainly would not pat on the head anyone who blithely encourages those kind of behaviors.
In a way, we are back at a Trayvon Martin situation. Where, those clamoring for Justice for Trayvon, because of his one death, allegedly because he was black, are silent on the other 9,000 per year or so caused by gangsta lifestyles and loose morals.
And, those clamoring for justice for the Baton Rouge 11, because of 11 arrests over a 2 year period, because they were gay, are silent on the 60,000 or so for those two years actually given a pretty serious and heretofore untreatable illness due to their own stupid and destructive lifestyle. Which was caused by the exact same behavior the BR11 were arrested for.
What do those two things have in common??? Is it that the hatred of the “political right” and what they stand for, is a whole lot more of a motivation than any actual love for the subject classes of blacks and gays???
I may be young, but I really think I am making some good points here.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“However, many people here view any “moralizing” by persons such as myself as horrible, and in need of damnation by God. I wonder if I have stumbled by accident into The Josef Mengele School of Ethics, wherein death by social experimentation is somehow a good thing???”
Ah Squeeky,
When at a loss for words call someone a NAZI. If you want to play that game and since the arrest of 11 people unconstitutionally is of no matter to you because you look down your perky little nose at them, probably you would have approved of sending the “filthy homosexuals” to the extermination camps because of their promiscuous ways?
“Which would indicate to me that cheesy gay sex”
So what kind of sex do you engage in Squeeky, or maybe you don’t because as a “nice girl” sex before marriage is bad? What a pompous young lady you are to make so many judgments on other people just because your Daddy and Mommy have told you how to live. That’s fine though, you can believe whatever you need to believe. However, because you believe something doesn’t give you, or anyone else for that matter, the right to use laws to suppress conduct that you don’t find appropriate. The issue isn’t your adolescent moralizing on the issue raised, which is obviously over your head, is that the State egged on by certain religious zealotry should not have the right to enforce someone’s religious morality on the rest of us.
Squeeky wrote: “I may be young, but I really think I am making some good points here.”
Yes you are! Keep it coming.
Mike played some slight-of-hand with statistics and you saw right through it. Good for you!
“Mike played some slight-of-hand with statistics and you saw right through it. Good for you!”
David,
What specific sleight of hand are you referring to?
Mike Spindell wrote: “What specific sleight of hand are you referring to?”
I was referring to the following: “Are you really unaware of how on a given night there are far more heterosexual people having casual unprotected sex than Gay people?”
To which Squeeky correctly responded that “the heteros are out-bad-sexing the gays strictly on a number basis, yet percentage wise, the gays are getting a wildly disproportionate amount of the virus.”
Using whole amounts when percentages are warranted is a common sleight-of-hand technique. Sometimes it is done purposefully, in a dishonest way, and sometimes it is done because of confirmation bias from an intense desire to prove a point. It is similar to changing the scale on the axes of graphs to make lines appear flatter or steeper than they really are. Unfortunately, people can use statistics to say whatever they want. Honest people, however, use statistics to understand aggregates of numbers in a meaningful way.
Warspite: You are right, I have no idea what point you think I don’t get. Can you do something besides recount obscurely pointless TV shows you have seen?
I certainly do not match the description of the Brando character you outline; I am not rebellious for the sake of rebellion. I am an atheist because I was raised by my father to reason and think for myself; my earliest memories of life include my father prompting me to argue opposite sides of questions. I was raised to think and question and believe nothing without good reason.
I do not rebel against religion, I am not fighting it. I reject it. It makes no sense, it is illogical, it has zero evidence, and it is a waste of people’s time. But, that said, so are novels, most television, plays, sports, restaurants and other entertainments, I certainly do not want anyone taking MY entertainments away on the grounds they serve no good purpose, so I am not fighting religion or trying to take it away from anybody.
If I fight at all, it is to keep my neighbors from building in my yard; which is to say it is to keep other people’s religion from having an impact on my life. Do what you want in your bedroom (or don’t do what you want), but put down the binoculars, what happens in my bedroom is none of your business. Build a two story edifice to the Lord in your front yard at Christmas time if it pleases you (within code), but don’t let it cross the sidewalk, and don’t think you can take over city park or the courthouse lawn because it pleases you. If I fight it is not fighting against religion, it is a fight against people overstepping their bounds.
Tony! Obscure TV show? Calling a BBC series narrated by Sir Laurence Olivier (now, you know it has to be important) obscure is really hitting below the belt. I’m sensing an Anglophobe, in addition to an Atheist.
I applaud your thinking for yourself, respecting a way of life taught by your father, and ability to knit a moral and ethical code out of whole cloth. However, as an intelligent guy you are aware the majority of people are not all that bright. Without Religion presenting a fully-formed set of moral and ethical beliefs, most people will not be able to come up with them. I concur that Organized Religion has evidence of deep flaws from centuries, even millennia, of missteps, mistakes, greed, sadism, etc. But I’m not sure the number of people in the U.S. who feel an obligation to feed and clothe the poor, heal the sick, sacrifice for the benefit of others, etc., etc., would exist w/o Christianity.
And, on the subject of TV, what about “A Charlie Brown Christmas”, “The Grinch Who Stole Christmas”, and even that one about Rudolf “narrated” by Burl Ives? Without Christianity, none would exist. And just try convincing folks the scene where the sled (& the Grinch’s dog w/antlers) is hanging over the cliff & the Grinch sees the folks in Whoville celebrating Xmas w/o gifts, & “gets it”, doesn’t get you. Tearing up, lump in throat, as the Grinch’s heart grows, etc. Am I right? Bet I am.
“or I could simply listen to my parents and grand parents and have some faith, and accept that there is a God, and an afterlife, and some basic rules that I have to follow. And if I did, my life would be a lot better, and there would be a whole lot less things that I would have to regret some day. Which, I can already see the wisdom of.
Sooo, I think that if some people are “reasoning” atheists, and can’t or won’t find the faith to accept these things, then maybe they should really consider STFU. Because there are bunch of poor schlubs, the kind of people that don’t reason and who don’t think about all the epistemological aspects, who are simply going to accept those personal atheistic conclusions and get knocked out of 30 or 40 years of life wasting it on follies of one sort or another. If a person is the kind of person who is going to “reason” their way to atheism, then they are probably going to get there anyway without any help from the elder atheists.”
Squeeky,
Listening to your parents is fine if it works for you. My two daughters are in their 30’s and they listen to their own minds. One daughter is an atheist and one daughter is very religious. I love them both and support hem both equally. To me parenting is giving ones’ children a loving and ethical upbringing and exposing them to the good things in ones heritage. Then it’s up to them to live their lives as they see fit. My job is to always love them unconditionally and give them what support they request.
Your second paragraph goes off the rails. I get it that you live by a certain religious and moral code. I applaud you if you believe it works well for you. However, I think your value judgments about people who don’t believe as you do are merely your pre-judgments as to what is right and what is wrong based upon your particular religious belief. Your assumption that those who don’t believe as you do haven’t given the matter much thought is a premature one. I’ve been thinking about this issue, religion and God, since I was in elementary school. Most people do give the matter much thought, but few articulate to others just what their thoughts are. There is parental pressure, family pressure and peer pressure to deal with and so many individual doubts or beliefs go unvoiced, not un-thought. The idea that many waste their lives. What you are conflating here is atheism and proselytizing. Tony is reacting to the proselytizing of some people here, like yourself, who are commenting based on their personal religious belief. What he and I find offensive about that is that in this instance it is because of people’s religious beliefs that homosexuals have been so persecuted. This persecution is contrary to what this country was founded upon and it mixes in religious belief and perceptions of morality, with running a just society.
It annoys you that in responding to you Tony attacks your religious beliefs, you think that somehow unfair. It is quite fair, simply because you are basing your entire argument on your religious beliefs and so invite attack upon them if one disagrees with you, as he and I do. When you say the he and those who believe as he does should STFU because they are influencing young people for atheism which will give them an unhappy life that is quite simply your pre-judgments talking. I’m a Jew, admittedly Deist, highly educated and quite thoughtful, approaching the age of 70. How do you think I feel when some fresh faced Christian Missionary approaches me with his “good news”, as if they have an insight I don’t. I tell you how I feel and that is offended and angry. I’ve read the Gospels. I’ve studied many religions and their subsets. My conclusions about life have come from deep thought and study. You say your beliefs come from listening to your parents and that is fine if it works for you. Seriously I am probably older than your parents and at least, if not more well educated than they are,
so if you represent them……who are you to lecture me. Now in saying that of course you can disagree with me and refute any arguments I make, but when you do, that means I am by the rules of logic and debate, free to attack your premises.
“These dozen or so people who were arrested, were trying to have gay sex with complete frigging strangers, the undercover cops. I don’t think these were cases of love at first sight. It was just Attempted Cheap Sex where the strangers, living breathing human beings, were pretty much just objectivised into something to slake the lust of the offenders. This kind of stuff happens all the time. It is what prostitutes and johns are arrested for.
Rather than come to their defense, maybe it would have been better for you to focus on the fact that their behavior, seeking sex with strangers, is both demeaning and dangerous. I just looked up the latest HIV numbers, and about 63% of the new cases are MSM, or 29,800. This is about 81.6 gay guys per night who get infected. I presume the persons infected do not willingly accept the disease. That is about twice the numbers of murders in the country.”
So Squeeky you have no problem with arresting people under a law that is unconstitutional simply because you deign to make moral judgments on their behavior. Are you really unaware of how on a given night there are far more heterosexual people having casual unprotected sex than Gay people?
Are you aware that in the “oh so religious bible Belt there are more unmarried pregnancies than in any other part of the country and that goes for STD’s as well. I remember the phrase. I would refer you and the text of your entire comment to Jesus’ stricture:
“JUDGE not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
—Matthew 7:1-5 KJV ”
Practice what you purportedly preach, kid.
Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
Thank you. I enjoyed the post, well written.
Squeeker: What about all those law suits trying to keep people from saying a prayer before a football game???
You do not have the right to use government resources to promote your religion. Period.
Squeeker: What about trying to take crosses off people’s graves because you find them offensive???
I have never done such a thing, and do not know a single atheist (of many dozens) that would; if it happened I would disown the atheist and condemn that action. It is a violation of somebody else’s private property and action, precisely the sort of thing that when endorsed lets the religious use the resources of the government to oppress atheists.
Squeeker: Criminy, you goobers even file suit to take the manger scenes out of Christmas displays on silly trumped excuse.
Not ALL manger scenes, only those using public property, buildings, or taxpayer money, because we want the government to be religion neutral in support of our right (and everybody’s) to be NON-CHRISTIAN, and not prejudiced toward CHRISTIANS over others, which is what is happening when the government is spending taxpayer money on CHRISTmas displays and promoting the fiction of a virgin birth of a supernatural ruler.
As I said, all your examples are YOU selfishly forcing YOUR belief system on others, and our efforts are not to force you to act as an atheist, but to prevent you from forcing us to act like Christians.
Tony C wrote: “You do not have the right to use government resources to promote your religion. Period.”
Wrong. Not even Thomas Jefferson believed this, and he was the one who coined the phrase, “Separation of Church and State.” Jefferson regularly met to worship God with other church members in the Capitol Building itself, right in the House of Representatives.
The problem is that you atheists have forced your perspective upon the courts and changed the reading of the Constitution from being about freedom OF religion to being freedom FROM religion. It was never the intent of our founders that government should be free from religion. What they wanted was a government that did not favor one religious establishment over another. This is what most religious sects want as well. They want to be free to herald their perception of truth and not be infringed upon by government. When government ceases to be neutral in regards to religion by disallowing religious symbols on public property, or disallowing religious speech on public property or at public events, that is when government has crossed the line.
You fail to see this because this approach gives your atheistic philosophy governmental support and approval while your opponent’s theistic philosophies get trampled on by government. You win through governmental tyranny rather than by the exchange of dialogue. Such is completely contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment, and you succeed in it only because our governmental leaders have been too dim to understand the issues. You don’t call your philosophy a religion, but your atheistic sects become favored over religious sects, the only difference being a belief or non-belief in God. Our founders never imagined atheism taking such a foothold in this country. It is perhaps time to amend the First Amendment to include a prohibition for government to respect an establishment of atheism.
“Wrong. Not even Thomas Jefferson believed this, and he was the one who coined the phrase, “Separation of Church and State.””
David,
Just when I thought we might come to some sort of meeting of the minds you again disappoint me. When you wrote:
“As a society, we should allow religion to define sexual morality, and to expound upon it thoroughly and attempt to persuade us, but civil laws need to take a minimalist approach to it because of principles of liberty and privacy.”
I took your meaning to be that people should believe as they wish, but that their belief has no place being enshrined in the law. Silly me, I should know you better by now.
Mike Spindell wrote: “I took your meaning to be that people should believe as they wish, but that their belief has no place being enshrined in the law. Silly me, I should know you better by now.”
What I mean is that there are many things which religion might define as harmful which should not be enshrined in law. That principle does not apply to all things that religion addresses.
For example, there are religious arguments against murder and stealing. There also are religious arguments regarding what we should eat or not eat. In those areas where we are persuaded, whether for religious reason or not, that certain types of behavior are harmful, and if we are persuaded that the harmfulness rises to such a degree that civil law should address it, then certainly our beliefs would be enshrined in law. For example, if my belief that murderers should be prosecuted convinces our legislature that laws against murder are necessary, then by all means, my belief in that regard will be enshrined in law.
In regards to sexual morality, I think there are many things religion can address separate from the force of law. That does not mean that we have a free for all in regards to civil laws. In particular, we need protections for children, such as protection from the sexual orientation of pedophiles like Ariel Castro, or protection like Russia has with their laws against homosexual propaganda that targets children (which reminds me of laws against tobacco propaganda that we enacted when I was younger).
My point, those who don’t get, like Tony, can be illustrated from a Brando film in the 50’s.
I’m not going back & forth on the Net trying to make myself look all-knowing, but I believe the film was, “The Wild Ones”.
Again, paraphrasing:
Journalist to Brando character: “What is it that you’re against?”
Brando character, looking very, very slightly amused, shrugging a bit: (great acting): “Whatcha got?”
You can never go wrong in demonstrating brave independence & iconoclasm by choosing Religion or Organized Religion as a target. We’re talking about can’t miss targets throughout most of recorded history.
Of course, there are always a very small number of “real” Atheists or Agnostics. Sometimes they’re Outliers, just hanging on at the edge of our Society. But, sometimes they are the polar opposite. Thoughtful men & women who have arrived at conclusions based on their observations, learning, personal experience.
I can’t be too critical of such beliefs. I was watching one of the episodes of “The World at War”, a BBC production of the 1970’s. An episode was devoted to the Holocaust, and had several advantages of a similar show if made today.
While its absolutely true that we know far more about the Holocaust today, some 35-40 years after the show was made, consider a few points. First of all, there were many more survivors of the Holocaust alive, and they were often as young as 40’ish. More witnesses, better memories. Second, the show was actually about the Holocaust. The organized effort, really an obsessive organized effort, to make all of Europe “Judenfrei”. No detours into Gypsies (not at all to make light of their situation), Homosexuals, Communists, Freemasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc., etc. The show stuck with the plan Hitler set out in the first half of the 1920’s.
The show had some very significant disadvantages. The myth of the Wehrmacht not being involved (just the SS) was still being peddled, and the great amount of assistance the Germans received from Ukrainians, Croats, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Latvians, etc., etc., was still not common knowledge. But I felt these weaknesses were far outweighed by the ability to hear clear recollection of events from people who were there.
One of the interviews was with a Jewish man, who was probably 13 or 14 when transported to a Death Camp. He recounted how he watched as all of the members of his family were separated by sex, and then “selection” began. He watched and knew what was happening. Within maybe 30 minutes his whole family was dead, dying, or waiting their turn to die. And, of course, it was going on all around him.
The gentleman stopped, paused, and then spoke about how if there were a G-d, how could that have happened? Why would G-d let it happen.
It was clear to me the man was an Atheist, and had very good reasons for being an Atheist. Better reasons to be an Atheist than almost anyone has for being Christian, Jewish, etc.
And for the virulent antisemites, the “that’s what they get for killing Christ” crowd, note that depending on where the Jews were from, a decent percentage of those liquidated were practicing Christians. Even their parents might have been practicing Christians. But under the Nuremberg Laws they were officially “Jews” anyway.
“The Wild Ones”
Really Warspite. That movie had all the depth and credibility of Reefer” Madness” and dealt with its topic with its topic of youthful angst with about as much intellectual depth.
DavidM: When the law defines a homicide as murder and punishes someone for committing murder, it is on behalf of all society.
Obviously, that is technically untrue; it certainly is not on behalf of the murderer, is it?
Once a society exceeds about fifty thousand people, it become essentially impossible to get unanimous agreement on anything, not even declaring pre-meditated murder a law: Some people still believe that homicide is a justifiable answer to insult or in revenge for a previous assault or crime against a family member, like the rape of a female or beating of a brother. There is a macho mindset that (with some justification) believes the threat of private retaliation acts as a shield for weaker members of their family, e.g. “Don’t even think about messing with John’s sister, that bad ass will kill you.” (I say with some justification because it certainly works that way with both gang members and organized crime families.)
So laws are always passed by some threshold of majority, it is the only practical way to avoid complete anarchy, which is the hypothetical alternative. I say “hypothetical” because anarchy is typically replaced instantly by unilateral rule by the threat of instant violence for disobedience, which requires no agreement from the populace whatsoever.
So, to the extent the law reflects the morality of the public, it has to be the consensus morality, not your individual morality.
Tony C wrote: “So, to the extent the law reflects the morality of the public, it has to be the consensus morality, not your individual morality.”
I agree, Tony. I have never argued for anything else. The thing is, my voice is part of that consensus. So why are you trying to silence me? Why do you attempt to marginalize me by pretending that what I say represents only my thinking and nobody else’s thinking?
The biggest difference between us in legal theory is that I believe laws must be framed carefully in a way that works for the common good. I believe in Natural Law Theory. Laws that punish good behavior, or laws that provide incentives for bad, are to be avoided. I do not believe that the majority is always wise enough to know what is best for them. Just like sometimes a parent knows what is best for his children, even when his children would override him through majority vote, so our representatives and leaders need to make right decisions. There is an important distinction between rulers who rule with the consent of the governed versus rulers who bend to the will of the majority vote in society. I favor the former while you favor the latter.
@TonyC:
Well, I can go to sleep at night and have a pretty clear conscience that I haven’t advocated stuff that hurts people. I submit that you atheists can’t, or more correctly phrased, shouldn’t .
You said: “We stand for what is right in the real world, we are not trying to impose our belief system upon you…”
BeeEss! What about all those law suits trying to keep people from saying a prayer before a football game??? What about trying to take crosses off people’s graves because you find them offensive??? Criminy, you goobers even file suit to take the manger scenes out of Christmas displays on silly trumped excuse.
Sooo, no. Don’t try to tell me that atheists are content to live and let live. And those examples above are relatively de minimis type assaults on religion. The real damage from your advocacys is what I said above, the encouraging of the less smart to abandon God, and along with that “bathwater” the “baby” of restraint, and morality. All in the defense of adultery, sodomy, promiscuity, drunkenness, greed, sloth, and a bunch of other cheesy behaviors.
You are like that actress I heard about, whoever, who had a kid with no husband, and it was like sooo KEWL! Never mind that over on the poor side of town, that kind of stuff condemns people to some really crummy and difficult lives. Your intellectualizations are somebody else’s excuse to screw up their life.
Please don’t sleep well.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Dredd,
Interesting link: True religion has (and will continue to) shaped our laws in this country. Most people refuse to accept the fact that although they are not a Christian or follow any religious doctrine in the US, they still obey and follow more than half of our country’s laws; these same laws were predicated upon by the founding fathers’ religious beliefs (beliefs from the Bible).
That ol’ green piece of paper still says: ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’
If you don’t want it, then please send that green stuff this way…..
Do they still read the ‘Pledge of Allegiance’ in public schools? Or did they take the word ‘God’ out of it?
Squeeker: No, you STFU. We atheists have no problem with your private beliefs and you living your life according to whatever fantasy your parents poisoned your mind with as a defenseless child, a mind rape from which you never recovered.
Our problem is when your private belief system impinges upon OUR life and US living our life according to OUR beliefs, which does nothing to harm you or prevent you from submitting to your imaginary owner. Pray and wail and beg for supernatural favor all you want, we don’t want to stop you if it makes you feel better.
But when you condemn homosexuals, or atheists, or anybody engaged in something that is none of your business, and when you damage your children by teaching them bigotry and hate and ignorance, then you are endangering others, and it is past time that YOU consider STFU.
We stand for what is right in the real world, we are not trying to impose our belief system upon you, we are defending ourselves from YOU trying to use the law to force YOUR belief system upon US.
MikeS:
Well, yes my head does hurt. Tequila hangovers really suck. But, what the hey, the drinks were free. Now, as far as the atheists here who say they got there by acts of reason or intellect, that is fine. I acknowledged as much in one of my responses. However, in my particular age group there is not much reasoning going on in the atheistic and non-Christian crowd. It is a whole lot more a visceral rebellion against the very idea of someone, anyone, flesh and blood or ethereal, telling them what they can or can’t do. Which will not end well.
My father told me that people were like petunias, and once they go, they ain’t coming back. He said that I could spend 30 or 40 years of my days in the sun bouncing around all over the place, and then end up coming to the realization that I had been a fool, or I could simply listen to my parents and grand parents and have some faith, and accept that there is a God, and an afterlife, and some basic rules that I have to follow. And if I did, my life would be a lot better, and there would be a whole lot less things that I would have to regret some day. Which, I can already see the wisdom of.
Sooo, I think that if some people are “reasoning” atheists, and can’t or won’t find the faith to accept these things, then maybe they should really consider STFU. Because there are bunch of poor schlubs, the kind of people that don’t reason and who don’t think about all the epistemological aspects, who are simply going to accept those personal atheistic conclusions and get knocked out of 30 or 40 years of life wasting it on follies of one sort or another. If a person is the kind of person who is going to “reason” their way to atheism, then they are probably going to get there anyway without any help from the elder atheists.
Now as far as God damning those people who pass moral judgements on homosexuality, if it was to be said at all, then I would say it better to “God damn those people who do NOT pass moral judgements on these behaviors.” Look more closely at what caused you to write this post in the first place.
These dozen or so people who were arrested, were trying to have gay sex with complete frigging strangers, the undercover cops. I don’t think these were cases of love at first sight. It was just Attempted Cheap Sex where the strangers, living breathing human beings, were pretty much just objectivised into something to slake the lust of the offenders. This kind of stuff happens all the time. It is what prostitutes and johns are arrested for.
Rather than come to their defense, maybe it would have been better for you to focus on the fact that their behavior, seeking sex with strangers, is both demeaning and dangerous. I just looked up the latest HIV numbers, and about 63% of the new cases are MSM, or 29,800. This is about 81.6 gay guys per night who get infected. I presume the persons infected do not willingly accept the disease. That is about twice the numbers of murders in the country.
In short, I am certainly not seeing anything about the behavior of the arrestees which merits any sort of “moral” defense. If I was their lawyer, I would certainly raise the Constitutional claims, but I would also tell them that their own behavior was reprehensible. Because maybe if more people took the time to tell them that, then maybe the message would sink in that being gay doesn’t exempt a person from basic human decency.
You seem to be stuck on the idea that “religious” people just pick on gay people because the Bible says so. As I have said before, I don’t think that it is as simplistic as that.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Mike reveals how amazing it is that we still have 13th century BC ideology affecting too many of the pillars of our conceptual structures.
Mike S: but if [incest] occurs among peers who am I to judge?
Do you agree we should outlaw drunk driving? Because a drunk driver has not necessarily committed a traffic violation or harmed anybody by driving drunk. The reason we outlaw drunk driving (rightly in my opinion) is that driving drunk increases the probability of harm.
Incest between fertile couples increases the chance of a harm to any offspring via inheritance of a regressive harmful gene (that in non-incest procreation would have a high chance of being selected from the healthy parent); basically if a male and female share one or more grandparents, the probability of inheriting a harmful gene is statistically increased.
Incest between unfertile couples does not bother me as much; although even there I retain some concern about whether “consent” between lifelong family members is sincere, or a result of relentless emotional and physical subjugation (including rape) that has broken any independent will.
As you well know from your profession, such things happen.
“Incest between fertile couples increases the chance of a harm to any offspring via inheritance of a regressive harmful gene (that in non-incest procreation would have a high chance of being selected from the healthy parent); basically if a male and female share one or more grandparents, the probability of inheriting a harmful gene is statistically increased.”
Tony,
I get that and from a societal standpoint it should be discouraged. Secondly, my qualification with all sexual matters is that coercion is impermissible as is relationship between non-peers. However, should law enforcement be looking into an Aunt and Nephew having sex if procreation is not possible. Should law enforcement in general equipped to equitably handle many sexual matters. We see in Virginia where a Legislator is proposing criminal penalties for sodomy which would include fellatio, cunnilingus and all anal sex despite the sex of the participants. Is this something we as a society should be involved in? I personally think that there should be an absolute minimum of law enforcement and sexuality. Freedom is never something easily dealt with because the ability of us humans to test any rule is unlimited
Mike Spindell wrote: “I personally think that there should be an absolute minimum of law enforcement and sexuality.”
Hear, hear. Yes, what Mike Spindell said here is absolutely correct. Minimum law enforcement on sexuality.
As a society, we should allow religion to define sexual morality, and to expound upon it thoroughly and attempt to persuade us, but civil laws need to take a minimalist approach to it because of principles of liberty and privacy.
“As a society, we should allow religion to define sexual morality, and to expound upon it thoroughly and attempt to persuade us, but civil laws need to take a minimalist approach to it because of principles of liberty and privacy.”
David,
Succinctly put and I agree.