It isn’t often that Rush Limbaugh is credited with inspiring pro-gay legislation. But Brian Duprey, a State Representative in Maine, credits Limbaugh with the idea for a bill that would prohibit abortions on unborn children who possess the “homosexual gene.”
"Most people would agree that to kill someone just because that person might be gay would constitute a hate crime," Duprey said.
"I have heard from women who told me that if they found out that they were carrying a child with the gay gene, then they would abort. I think this is wrong," Duprey explained to the Press Herald. "Those unborn children should be protected."
Critics of the conservative Republican legislator claim that Duprey is simply attempting to pit abortion advocates against supporters of gay rights. But the state representative’s motives are irrelevant to the question of whether the bill should be considered a legitimate concern. If killing a person because they are gay constitutes a "hate crime", wouldn't aborting a child to prevent them from being "born gay" be similarly despicable and worthy of censure?
The existence of a “gay gene” is, of course, purely speculative. And while many supporters of gay rights have based their arguments on homosexuality having a genetic basis, no such gene has ever been discovered. But as Francis Fukuyama notes in Our Posthuman Future, such a gene does not have to be found to have the same eliminating effect:
Assume that in the twenty years we come to understand the genetics of homosexuality well and devise a way for parents to sharply reduce the likelihood that they will give birth to a gay child. This does not have to presuppose the existence of genetic engineering; it could simply be a pill that provided sufficient levels of testosterone in utero to masculine the brain of the developing fetus. Suppose the treatment is cheap, effective, produces no side effects, and can be prescribed in the privacy of the obstetrician’s office. Assume further that social norms have become totally accepting of homosexuality. How many expecting mothers would opt to take this pill?
Fukuyama believes that most parents would choose to take such a pill. I think he's right. Even if a homosexual orientation were considered a benign trait such as baldness or left-handedness, the majority of parents would opt to have a "straight" child (“What if we want grandchildren?”). Anyone who disagrees is overestimating the level of acceptance that even “tolerant” people have toward the homosexuality. Likewise, anyone who thinks this scenario is unlikely hasn’t being keeping up with advances in biotechnology. The only thing far-fetched about this picture is the idea that it'll be twenty years before it becomes a reality.
The question then is what will happen to gays and lesbians when homosexuality becomes “preventable?” My guess it that it won’t be long before "being gay" is once again classified under the disease model of behavior and is considered a treatable condition. After all, it was only recently that psychiatry let go of its hold on this "disorder." (Until 1987, “ego-dystonic homosexuality” was still classified as a pathology in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).)
The fact that the vast majority of gay people will not feel a corresponding desire to be “treated” will be deemed irrelevant. When alcoholism became a “disease” the onus was put on the individual to “get help” whether it was desired or not. If an alcoholic says that she can live and function just fine with her “condition”, she is considered in denial. If she won’t seek help for herself, the family and friends are encouraged to participate in an “intervention” to persuade her. Likewise, homosexuals may be compelled to seek treatment for their condition. Failure to do so might allow insurance companies to legitimately deny coverage for any illnesses that can be traced back to this “preventable” condition.
Whether Christians should support prenatal measures that would prevent a child from being “born gay” is a point for further debate. But what should not be open for discussion is for evangelical and other Biblical Christians to accept the idea that homosexuality should be considered a “mental illness.” Orthodox Christianity holds a high regard for human dignity and classifying such behavior as a sickness removes the moral responsibility for the behavior from the individual. The value of human dignity is denigrated when free will and responsibility are replaced by biological determinism.
From the evangelical viewpoint, homoerotic desire might very well have a biological basis. It is not the desire, however, but the activity that is considered immoral. Desire may be determined by genetics but acting upon that desire in the form of sexual activity requires a freely chosen decision. On this point we see no difference between the desires of homosexuals and those of the heterosexual. An adolescent heterosexual male, for example, is certainly driven to distraction by his hormonal urge to reproduce. The desire is natural and outside of the young man's control. He would not be justified, however, in satisfying that desire in any way that he pleases. While the desire is natural, it can lead to promiscuity, which is an immoral and self-destructive behavior.
So if we believe that science will eventually remove the biological basis for homosexuality then why should evangelicals even care? Because we believe in Truth. As Christians we have a duty to uphold the truth even when it might be more advantageous to “keep quiet and let the problem go away on its own.” That’s not an option that is open to us. If we believe that humans are morally culpable for sexual behavior then we must uphold that view.
For better or for worse, science will ultimately erase any biological basis for homosexuality. What won’t be eradicated, however, is homosexual behavior. From the soldier’s camps of ancient Rome to our present-day prisons, sodomy has remained a sexual practice among heterosexuals. The behavior won't go away even if the biological basis for the "orientation" does.
Although the moral issues remain debatable, the legal point is moot since even if Duprey’s bill were to pass the state legislature, it would not pass Constitutional muster. Roe v. Wade clearly states that in the first trimester “the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.” Under Roe, the state cannot intervene to prevent abortions because they disagree with the pregnant woman’s motive. If she wants to kill the child because she doesn’t want a baby that is born female, left-handed, or gay, she has that uncontestable right.
If Rep. Duprey’s critics are right and he is attempting to force lawmakers to choose between abortion rights and gay rights, then he is wasting his time. In America, the right to choose abortion outweighs any concerns against potential discrimination against homosexuals. If pro-choicers are forced to decide between compromising on abortion and supporting a procedure that would, as the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians claims, “eliminate gays and lesbians once and for all” the choice is obvious: the gays will have to go.
(HT: Letters from Babylon)
[Note: Portions of this post originally appeared in "Biology or Behavior?: The Issue On Which Evangelicals and Homosexuals Should Agree".]
1
This also hits upon 'designer babies', and how about testing to see if a child has the gene (extra)that will cause Downs.
Interesting, the pro-death camp can choose who should live, but if someone would want to abort part of their constituancy they are against it.
Go Pro-life.
2
Joe - some good points here, particularly your insistance that we separate learned or voluntary behavior from biology. I've always said that while there may be a "gay gene," we certainly will never find a "gay bath-house gene."
Another interesting point that even the gay community won't touch with a 10-ft. pole is the fact that gay men almost universally claim an emotional or psychological "difference", while lesbians are pretty much split between a genuine attraction to women vs. a lifestyle choice usually based on emotional or physical abuse by a man (husband, boyfriend, father, etc.).
There's certainly no way to predict those choices while the child is still in the womb.
posted on 03.09.2005 7:24 AM3
Woah, there, podner. Slow down here. You've got a lot packed into this.
Hitting the highlights:
The "ban anti-gay abortion" bill is clearly nasty and stupid. (For one thing, there is no test for a "gay gene," so the bill applies to exactly none of the tens of millions of abortions that have ever been performed in this country or will be in the forseeable future. Now, useless and hateful bills are hardly a rarity for GOP legislators, but a bill that knowingly does nothing at all is, obviously, not intended to actually address a problem. It's intended to cause trouble.) For all that, the bill does stumble across an important issue. The issue of "discriminatory" selective abortions to eliminate some particular trait has been discussed extensively by people who know a lot more about these things than Duprey. It is particularly troublesome in highly patriarchal countries such as India, where in some states as much as 95% of female fetuses are aborted, distinctly altering the population-wide sex ratio and further weakening the social position of those females who are born. The same thing could easily happen to gays. There have been complaints from some disability-rights groups that it is happening in the US already to, for instance, those with Down syndrome. The response in India has been a ban in some states on sex-selective abortions; there have been calls for similar bans in the US. That doesn't justify injecting a badly-conceived and irresponsible bill simply to make other people's lives harder, but the issue is real whether Duprey realized that or not.
As for how popular a preventive intervention against homosexuality would be, no doubt many people would opt to use it if they could, but I think you are wrong about how popular in general it would be. There is factual evidence to that effect. In the deaf community, there is a long-running debate over the desirability of treatments to prevent congenital deafness. Many deaf parents say they would prefer a deaf child and would refuse to use such treatments if they conceived a deaf child (most deafness is not heritable, however), and further that attempts to "fix" deaf children amount to discrimination against deaf people and "deaf culture." Cultural awareness of deaf culture and of the possibilities in life for deaf people has also increased. Today there is a sizable, demonstrable community of people who do not want a "cure" for deafness even though it is undeniably a significant social liability. Advocates for people with other disabilities make similar arguments, quite heatedly. Demonstrably as well, the same attitudes exist for homosexuality, and I suspect a debate over a "cure" for it, if one became available, would run along the same lines.
The ability to discriminate against certain physical/behavioral types would undoubtedly reduce their prevalence, but, especially with conditions that mostly arise randomly rather than by direct inheritance, there will always be some residual level of the condition occurring among families who choose not to discriminate against it. Thus the overall level of a given condition at any time depends largely on the relative balance of those who accept and those who reject the condition, but will never reach zero, and will climb back up to some equilibrium level if the "rejection" stance is eliminated. As far as social acceptance of the "gay gene" goes, time is not on your side.
(Another point for Fukuyama: gays do have children, and the parents of gays have grandchildren through their gay children, so that's really not a reason not to have gay kids, as long as they realize this. One of the things that dooms bigotry is that ignorance is curable.)
As for homosexuality as a disease, that's not coming back. It was never more than a superficial codification of social prejudice, and when the prejudice went away, the disease went away. Since then a lot of discussion has gone into the "definition of disease," especially in psychiatry (largely as a result of the homosexuality disgrace). To reclassify it as a disease would require demonstrating that it is the result of an overt pathology, or is distinctly dysfunctional other than by way of social discrimination. Both are clearly false. They're here, they're queer, get used to it.
As to whether evangelicals should consider homosexuality a disease, you have the cart before the horse. If "disease" has any objective meaning, then homosexuality either is or is not a disease, irrespective of whether you want it to be or whether it fits some religious perspective on how people should behave. Choosing to consider a thing a disease (or not) because it fits your religious model is to assert that actual facts about biology can be stipulated on the basis of Biblical passages. This merely invests the Bible with absurdity but says nothing about the factual state of things. (One is tempted to note a parallel with "Intelligent Design," but never mind.)
Finally, it's very offensive to claim that abortion-rights supporters have declared that "gays must go". For one thing, as noted, that has nothing to do with abortion and abortion cannot (now) even be used in any way that distinctly impacts gays. The obvious fact that gay-rights and abortion-rights supporters are vastly more likely to be the same people than otherwise should suggest the falseness of that claim. It is Duprey who has injected discrimination against gays into the abortion-rights debate, in as cynical and disingenuous a manner as possible. (Without even looking it up, I will bet money that he has opposed every gay-rights and hate crimes bill that he has previously seen.) His attempt to roll back rights in one sphere with a useless and duplicitous (and, as you note, unconstitutional) pretense of protecting rights that are not actually threatened in another sphere tells us as much about his morals as we need to know. Abortion rights supporters hardly have any apologies to make to anyone like him.
posted on 03.09.2005 9:20 AM4
I think that if you consider a fetus a non-human, then this is not a hate crime, and it poses no physical danger to gays. In addition, I don't think "gayness" is in danger fo reverting to the status of "disease" anytime soon.
But this does highlight the new moral dilemma of our age--one that a standard conception of rights fails to address. What happenns when people voluntarily, contractually, and concentually begin to build individual moral consensuses fromt he ashes of enlightenment nihilism? The arising condition may b a lot worse than the Victorian morality post-modernists abandoned with glee.
posted on 03.09.2005 9:26 AM5
What if it becomes possible to screen out sperm and eggs carrying the hypothetical 'gay gene' before conception? Hate crime or not?
Anyway I'm not impressed with yet another round of rhetorical word games in the abortion fight. How typical that the latest pro-life offensive is against abortions that do not exist & advocating a change in law that cannot be applied.
I suppose no one but me will catch the irony that a 100% victory by the pro-life side in this argument will not alter the number of abortions performed in the US at all.
posted on 03.09.2005 9:46 AM6
If killing a person because they are gay constitutes a "hate crime", wouldn't aborting a child to prevent them from being "born gay" be similarly despicable and worthy of censure?
A hate crime is an action that is otherwise criminal; motivated by hate of a protected class; and causes harm to a member of the protected class. Abortion fails on two counts: it isn't an otherwise criminal act; and it doesn't hurt a member of a protected class (fetii not being legal people).
Consider me shocked that Limbaugh would've proposed or inspired something analytically feeble.
posted on 03.09.2005 11:17 AM7
Regarding the uselessness of the bill, I just have this thought:
If one truly believes that abortion is murder, and one also truly believes that the homosexual agenda is unhealthy for America, then is it not prudent to set two of your enemies against each other, rendering them weaker and distracted?
This is a brilliant tactical decision. Who cares if the bill is useless in practice, it is the philosophy behind the bill that works the magic.
Lest you have any doubt, there is a war going on in America. This is battle. This is combat. This isn't some abstract discussion about political theory, this is is a full on bloody melee for the soul of the country. As such, don't be suprised when both sides use sneaky tactics.
posted on 03.09.2005 12:56 PM8
"Interesting, the pro-death camp can choose who should live, but if someone would want to abort part of their constituancy they are against it."
I must have missed something, Dan. What pro-choice people have taken a stand against the abortion of potentially gay fetuses? I see nothing in Joe's post to support that contention. Pro-choice folks are pro-choice; I've heard of none who want to protect some fetuses and not others, apart from those who want restrictions on late-term abortions.
9
This is a brilliant tactical decision.
Except that everyone knows it's just a tactic, and not worth discussing substantively.
posted on 03.09.2005 1:11 PM10
Phil A
"As such, don't be suprised when both sides use sneaky tactics. "
I am surprised when fundies and their apologists don't use sneaky tactics. Dissembling and wordplay, aka Lying for Jesus, is their forte.
That said, there is no "magic" to pathological liar and Christian leader Rush Limbaugh's pathetic legislation. It's vapid, worthless and transparently so, for the simple reasons that jpe pointed out above.
The fact is that women in this country will always -- ALWAYS -- be permitted to abort their pregnancies for whatever reason they choose, within the Constitutional scheme more or less outlined in Casey. You and I might not agree with the reasons a woman gives for the termination of their pregnancy, but it's really none of our business.
Message to conservative Christians: stop granting the government power to interfere with the most private aspects of my life. Got that, you obnoxious hypocrites? Thanks.
posted on 03.09.2005 1:44 PM11
For better or for worse, science will ultimately erase any biological basis for homosexuality.
Uh, why? Will science also "ultimately erase" genes for dark skin? For long noses and a propensity to hold monotheistic views?
Seriously, why?
Implicit in the statement seems to be the idea that such things "science will ultimately erase" are harmful to the individual (or society?)
I don't see such a harm.
12
Larry -
If this was about what food you're allowed to eat or what movies you are allowed to watch, I would agree.
This is about infanticide.
We truly believe abortion is murder. We would be hypocrites if we didn't do everything in our power to stop the latest Purge of undesirables.
posted on 03.09.2005 1:51 PM13
Joe writes
"And while many supporters of gay rights have based their arguments on homosexuality having a genetic basis, no such gene has ever been discovered."
Joe, since you are allegedly in the business of bioethics now, you should start getting the "bio" straight.
"Genetic basis" does not equal "a gene". It means "genetic basis." Get yourself out of this lazy habit of referring to a "gay gene" and pretending that because "a gene" hasn't been found that "causes" people to be gay, that there isn't a genetic basis for homosexuality.
Everyone who has a brain and who isn't prevented from using it by fundamentalist religious beliefs and who understands the science knows that there is a genetic basis to homosexuality, i.e., virtually every scientist who has investigated the issue.
Do you understand this Joe? If you understand this, then what is the Christian justification for continuing to pretend that this is not the case?
posted on 03.09.2005 1:52 PM14
"We truly believe abortion is murder. We would be hypocrites if we didn't do everything in our power to stop the latest Purge of undesirables."
If I "knew" that people were committing mass murder of babies in my city and no one was doing anything about it I'd get a bunch of my neighbors together, load up our rifles, and put an end to it.
So I guess you're a hypocrite, i.e., I'm right and your're wrong and you're a hypocrite. Or a coward.
posted on 03.09.2005 1:58 PM15
Another pithy thought: I have a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism. Doesn't give me license to be an alcoholic.
posted on 03.09.2005 1:58 PM16
Larry -
We can probably do more good using the system rather than making martyrs out of scummy abortion doctors.
I want the secularist death culture to change NOW so that I don't have to take up arms later. Considering most Americans are repulsed by abortion, I think we have a good chance of doing this non-violently.
17
Joe
"The question then is what will happen to gays and lesbians when homosexuality becomes “preventable?” My guess it that it won’t be long before "being gay" is once again classified under the disease model of behavior and is considered a treatable condition."
Somehow I suspect that Joe is LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT DAY AND WILL HELP OUT WHERE HE CAN TO HASTEN ITS ARRIVAL.
Does anyone disagree?
And this attitude is supposed to be justified for evangelicals, of course, because most of the New Testament is just transcripts of Jesus Christ spouting anti-gay bigotry.
This sect is digging itself into a deep hole. Be careful.
posted on 03.09.2005 2:16 PM18
Clearly an attempt to show the logical inconsistency of pro-choice ideology as well as the idea of hate crime. I think Joe brings up a good point: if it even came to such a debate I think the pro-choicers would be in quite a quandary. Do they stick to their guns and claim that abortion, on-demand, for whatever reason, should be legal. Or do they openly show their inconsistency and bias by claiming special rights for the gay fetus. It would certainly separate the wheat from the tares within the pro-choice community.
And, as far as hate crime goes: I just never got the idea that a person who hates his brother to the point of killing his brother is less wrong that the person who hates his brother for being gay to the point of killing his brother.
posted on 03.09.2005 2:20 PM19
Somehow I suspect that Joe is LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT DAY AND WILL HELP OUT WHERE HE CAN TO HASTEN ITS ARRIVAL.
I don't think even Joe would disagree. And what's wrong with that, by the way? If Joe truly believes homosexual actions are dangerous to the actors then wouldn't he be completely justified in wanting those actors cured?
This sect is digging itself into a deep hole. Be careful.
Don't worry, Larry, you'll still beat us to China.
posted on 03.09.2005 2:24 PM20
"Considering most Americans are repulsed by abortion"
Undoubtedly. Most Americans are repulsed by hemorrhoid surgery, too, but they don't want it to be illegal.
Thankfully, education about abstinence and contraceptives are a proven way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But for some reason Christians don't want people to be educated about contraceptives or much else when it comes to biology.
Once again: blatant hypocracy. So much for doing "everything in your power" Phil. You just struck out. Shall I walk you back to the dugout or would you rather stand in the batter's box and weep for the rest of the inning?
"I have a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism. Doesn't give me license to be an alcoholic."
Addiction per se is not illegal, to the best of my knowledge.
By the way, alcoholics have a tendency to spout out pure self-serving baloney and engage in self-denial. Now, where I have seen those traits on display recently?
posted on 03.09.2005 2:25 PM21
Larry -
Thankfully, education about abstinence and contraceptives are a proven way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But for some reason Christians don't want people to be educated about contraceptives or much else when it comes to biology.
Come on now, Lar. Maybe others feel this way, but I've never come close to wanting to deny education.
Education just isn't good enough for me. I want teens educated on how not to get knocked up. I also want them locked up if they murder their kids. It's a two-tier approach!
posted on 03.09.2005 2:40 PM22
Boon:
Anyway I'm not impressed with yet another round of rhetorical word games in the abortion fight. How typical that the latest pro-life offensive is against abortions that do not exist & advocating a change in law that cannot be applied.
Aren't you the same guy who was using the analogy of an alien abduction wherein the abducted gets her baby removed and implanted in her husbands modified body?
posted on 03.09.2005 2:40 PM23
P.S. I mean to say the education by itself is not good enough. Education is always good, but sometimes you need more.
posted on 03.09.2005 2:41 PM24
But for some reason Christians don't want people to be educated about contraceptives or much else when it comes to biology. Once again: blatant hypocracy. So much for doing "everything in your power" Phil. You just struck out.
You're the one who struck out, Lar. Again by way of hasty generalizations.
Darn that pesky logic.
posted on 03.09.2005 2:42 PM25
Larry Lord why don't you dry-up and blow away! You can't even get "hemorrhoid surgery" because it would kill you to remove that half of your body. Just slither back under your rock!
posted on 03.09.2005 2:49 PM26
Phil
"Maybe others feel this way, but I've never come close to wanting to deny education."
Glad to hear it.
I just wrote an awesome nuclear bomb of a post destroying Mr. Ed for the 10,000th time and my damn server failed.
I hate it when that happens.
posted on 03.09.2005 2:51 PM27
I just wrote an awesome nuclear bomb of a post destroying Mr. Ed for the 10,000th time and my damn server failed. I hate it when that happens.
Yeah, I hate when I wake up in the middle of a good dream too.
posted on 03.09.2005 2:55 PM28
Mr Ed
"If Joe truly believes homosexual actions are dangerous to the actors then wouldn't he be completely justified in wanting those actors cured?"
Sorry, Ed, merely having a "true belief" is not enough to justify characterizing a vast number of fully functioning and harmless members of society as "diseased". See the history of slavery in the United States for a relevant example of "true beliefs" (many of them springing from the same foundation from which Joe's beliefs spring) that were subsequently found inconsistent with reality when people pulled their heads out of their arses and stopped listening to the lies fed to them by their mommies and daddies.
posted on 03.09.2005 2:57 PM29
I wrote
"Christians don't want people to be educated about contraceptives or much else when it comes to biology. Once again: blatant hypocracy."
and Ed pretends not to know what I'm talking about. Ed, willfully ignorant and a professional pretender for Jesus, writes
"You're the one who struck out, Lar. Again by way of hasty generalizations"
Nope. The fact is that there is a bigmouthed group of people in this country who want abstinence-only sex education, in spite of the fact that such education has proven to be ineffective. And the fact is that those people are Christians.
It's okay to criticize those Christians Ed. As a self-proclaimed Christian yourself, you might be better at identifying the particular sects to which they belong.
As I recall, you belong to the Johnsonite Christian sect -- the sect with the biggest shovels.
30
Sorry, Ed, merely having a "true belief" is not enough to justify characterizing a vast number of fully functioning and harmless members of society as "diseased".
But that wasn't the question, now was it Lar? Joe started by saying that homosexuality would probably become reclassified as a disease if it was ever determined to be preventable. That's not a "true belief", that scenario would be based on scientific research (i.e. genetic research determining that a gay gene could be "fixed").
Was that your nuclear bomb, Lar? Well, it did bomb, I'll give you that.
posted on 03.09.2005 3:01 PM31
Nope. The fact is that there is a bigmouthed group of people in this country who want abstinence-only sex education, in spite of the fact that such education has proven to be ineffective. And the fact is that those people are Christians.
Then you would do well in specifying that you're talking about a "bigmouthed group of people in this country who want abstinence-only sex education" and not all Christians. As Phil already noted, you were completely wrong in his case as you as in mine.
It's okay to criticize those Christians Ed. As a self-proclaimed Christian yourself, you might be better at identifying the particular sects to which they belong.
I try to keep my criticisms within the family. I'd rather not see you tout my name about to support your hair-brained theories like you do Mr. Wallis'.
As I recall, you belong to the Johnsonite Christian sect -- the sect with the biggest shovels.
No idea what you're talking about here.
posted on 03.09.2005 3:06 PM32
This is a brilliant tactical decision. Who cares if the bill is useless in practice, it is the philosophy behind the bill that works the magic.
Lest you have any doubt, there is a war going on in America. This is battle. This is combat. This isn't some abstract discussion about political theory, this is is a full on bloody melee for the soul of the country. As such, don't be suprised when both sides use sneaky tactics.
Hey wow its full action combat!!!! Excitement mode ON!!!!!!! BAM BOOM ZOOWIE!!!!!! 75% off all exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!
Since this is combat, our first exciting battle will be for something that has no effect on the real world. !!
Thankfully Mr. Ed is usually able to conduct himself with a bit more intelligence:
Clearly an attempt to show the logical inconsistency of pro-choice ideology as well as the idea of hate crime. I think Joe brings up a good point: if it even came to such a debate I think the pro-choicers would be in quite a quandary.
Again what is the inconsistency? How about genetic profiling that results in parents who have a propensity to have a handicapped child decide to adopt rather than conceive? Isn't that inconsistent with laws prohibiting discrimination against the handicapped? Or is this just a cute little word game being played by not only dishonest people but people who actually brag about being dishonest while acting their part (sorry, can't get Phil out of my mind).
And, as far as hate crime goes: I just never got the idea that a person who hates his brother to the point of killing his brother is less wrong that the person who hates his brother for being gay to the point of killing his brother.
I've been skepitcal of hate crimes laws in practice but in theory they are justified based on the larger harm they do to society. If X kills Y for the usual mundane reasons it is the crime of murder. But if X kills Y for certain other types of reasons it is not only murder but a threat and attempt at intimidation of the larger society.
In the US & most developed nations we are fortunate to have very few political killings, however look at Iraq. When Islamists kill a leader who is not radical enough for their tastes they are not just killing a person but trying to intimidate everyone else who might agree with that person. In that sense it is a more serious crime than simple murder.
In the US that type of killing is rare but what happens when someone attacks someone because they are the first black to move into a neighborhood? They are sending a threat not only to blacks but also whites who are not prejudiced. In theory there is no reason that this cannot be treated as a greater crime.
BTW, hate crime laws do not center around 'protected classes'. They punish crimes based on certain motives. For example, blacks can be convicted of hate crimes on whites as much as the reverse (in fact, I remember someone arguing in a debate somewhere that there are actually more blacks in prison for hate crimes violations than whites...but I don't have a source on that).
Aren't you the same guy who was using the analogy of an alien abduction wherein the abducted gets her baby removed and implanted in her husbands modified body?
Ouch! Tsk tsk Mr. Ed! Yea I used that anaology when we were debating whether or not the gov't has the right to outlaw abortion. My intent was to make a larger argument about what should be the limits of government's power over the individual. Not to demand an X-files program to abductions and experimentations on humans by evil space aliens!
posted on 03.09.2005 3:28 PM33
Oh, Ed, your little baby skin is so sensitive.
And it was you who brought up "true beliefs" and it was you to whom I was responding so I have no idea where you are you going with the "original question" crap.
Oh, I take that back: I do know where you're going. You're trying to change the issue because, as usual, you've stuck your foot in your mouth and need some time to pull it out.
Good luck. I'm sure you'll come up with some other excuse to "justify" Christian bigotry against gays. It would be nice to hear an excuse that will stand up in a court of law in the United States. THat's really the only excuse that those of us who don't "truly believe" in your ancient holy book care about.
34
Clearly an attempt to show the logical inconsistency of pro-choice ideology as well as the idea of hate crime.
There's no inconsistencies involved; it's merely trying to play one off the other (or more accurately, to get gay-rights activists to think of fetii as people).
posted on 03.09.2005 3:40 PM35
Okay, I'll take Larry's comment first since it won't require much thought:
Oh, Ed, your little baby skin is so sensitive.
Again, no clue what you're talking about. Unless you're already resorting to personal attacks because you've run out of any substantive arguments.
And it was you who brought up "true beliefs" and it was you to whom I was responding so I have no idea where you are you going with the "original question" crap.
Your lack of ability to follow a thread isn't an excuse for poor reasoning. Case in point: my post made no mention of "characterizing" anyone--that came from Joe's original post. Oddly, you remebered that much of the thread.
Oh, I take that back: I do know where you're going. You're trying to change the issue because, as usual, you've stuck your foot in your mouth and need some time to pull it out.
No, read the thread again. My point was completely apropos.
Good luck. I'm sure you'll come up with some other excuse to "justify" Christian bigotry against gays. It would be nice to hear an excuse that will stand up in a court of law in the United States. THat's really the only excuse that those of us who don't "truly believe" in your ancient holy book care about.
Sheesh, talk about off topic. Concentrate, Lar.
posted on 03.09.2005 4:32 PM36
No ad hominems Ed. You whined about my use of the term "Christian" to characterize those folks who promote abstinence-only "education."
You whined like a baby. Boo hoo hoo, you cried, you're generalizing, Larry, you cried.
You're a sensitive creature, Ed. Perhaps you've got a little girl in you or at least more than the average share of girly genes, if I may engage in a bit of playful stereotyping. Enjoy.
Now, once again, you wrote
"If Joe truly believes homosexual actions are dangerous to the actors then wouldn't he be completely justified in wanting those actors cured?"
As I explained above, the answer is no unless Joe's "true beliefs" are based in reality and not in some ancient holy book. Using writings in an ancient book that predates modern science by one or two millenia to classify a group of human beings as "diseased" is not "completely justified."
I already made this clear. And like the huge jerk that you are, you pretended that it never happened and tried to change the subject.
Once again, it's probably time to have your diaper changed. After you've grown up and can articulate some compelling fact-based reason to engage in discrimination against gay people, I'm all ears.
In the meantime, suck on a pacifier.
posted on 03.09.2005 4:44 PM37
Why don't we explore some of the older abortion debate ideas in relation to this 'gay protection law'. Here's one analogy; a person's life depends upon a blood transfusion and only one person, Joe, happens to share the exceptionally rare blood type. Joe, unfortunately, has strict religious beliefs against blood transfusions. He refuses to donate.
Can the gov't force him to do so?
Another donar turns up, Phil. Phil has no religious qualms about donating but he happens to despite the poor guy who needs the transfusion.
If Phil refuses is he guilty of murder?
Finally it turns out that Larry also has the right type. But Larry despises Christian fundamentalists and it turns out that the poor fellow in need of the transplant happens to be one. In fact he is a noted Creationist/IDer to boot!
If Larry refuses to donate is he guilty of a hate crime since it will result in the guys death?
posted on 03.09.2005 4:45 PM38
Boonton
"Larry despises Christian fundamentalists and it turns out that the poor fellow in need of the transplant happens to be one. In fact he is a noted Creationist/IDer to boot!"
Which one? ;)
posted on 03.09.2005 5:06 PM39
Boon:
Again what is the inconsistency? How about genetic profiling that results in parents who have a propensity to have a handicapped child decide to adopt rather than conceive? Isn't that inconsistent with laws prohibiting discrimination against the handicapped?
Surely you can see the distinction between avoiding pregnancy because of a genetic mismatch and terminating a pregnancy because of a genetic abnormality. Even the most ardent pro-lifer will tell you that there should not be a law requiring married couples to procreate. And its not inconsistent to say so; there is a world of difference before and after conception.
I've been skepitcal of hate crimes laws in practice but in theory they are justified based on the larger harm they do to society. If X kills Y for the usual mundane reasons it is the crime of murder. But if X kills Y for certain other types of reasons it is not only murder but a threat and attempt at intimidation of the larger society.
I can see your point--in the context of the current treatment of criminals. But your point highlights the fact that we don't treat crime, let alone the crime of murder, harshly enough. Now, I agree with President Bush when he was discussing the idea of hate crimes as it related to the case of James Byrd. As I recall, two of the three defendants were sentenced to death. What more could be done than that? What would the addition of "hate" have added to the sentence?
Ouch! Tsk tsk Mr. Ed!
Sorry, couldn't resist the comparison.
posted on 03.09.2005 5:19 PM40
Surely you can see the distinction between avoiding pregnancy because of a genetic mismatch and terminating a pregnancy because of a genetic abnormality.
Hmmm, how about an employer who made sure his building was the most handicapped unfriendly possible. He never rejects a handicapped job applicant because he never gets one! Anti-discrimination law would not be on his side.
I understand pro-lifers see a distinction between abortion and avoiding pregnancy but they are the ones that are trying this odd application of anti-discrimination law. If the gov't can stop you from discriminating when you choose abortion what logical reason is there for the gov't to be powerless to stop you in practicing conception discrimination?
I can see your point--in the context of the current treatment of criminals. But your point highlights the fact that we don't treat crime, let alone the crime of murder, harshly enough. Now, I agree with President Bush when he was discussing the idea of hate crimes as it related to the case of James Byrd. As I recall, two of the three defendants were sentenced to death. What more could be done than that? What would the addition of "hate" have added to the sentence?
Well which one is it, do we fail to treat murders harshly enough or do we tend to give them the harshest sentence possible? Always check the last part of your paragraph to make sure it doesn't contradict the first part! Anyway Byrd's killers are on the extreme end of hate crimes. I would say most hate crimes cluster around the misdomenor area...petty vandalism, minor harrassment and such. In those cases you would want to see a distinction between the kid who spray paints a wall 'cause he's just a mundane trouble maker versus the guy who spray paints a threat on someone's house.
posted on 03.09.2005 5:27 PM41
No ad hominems Ed. You whined about my use of the term "Christian" to characterize those folks who promote abstinence-only "education." You whined like a baby. Boo hoo hoo, you cried, you're generalizing, Larry, you cried. You're a sensitive creature, Ed. Perhaps you've got a little girl in you or at least more than the average share of girly genes, if I may engage in a bit of playful stereotyping. Enjoy.
Yep, you've completely run out of anything substantive to say. For the record, there's a distinct difference between a whine and a correction. I was correcting you because you were wrong. You were wrong in Phil's case and you are wrong in mine.
As I explained above, the answer is no unless Joe's "true beliefs" are based in reality and not in some ancient holy book. Using writings in an ancient book that predates modern science by one or two millenia to classify a group of human beings as "diseased" is not "completely justified."
And as I've explained, Joe said (and by the magic of the computer you can go back and see for yourself) that if homosexuality was found to be preventable it would probably be reclassified as a disease. He then goes on to say that until recently "ego-dystonic homosexuality" was classified as a disease under the DSM-II. You responded that you thought he would like to hasten that day. What is that day, Lar? It was obvious to all of us that you were referring to that day as the day when homosexuality is once again classified under the DSM as a disease. How do things get classified under the DSM as diseases, Lar? By people's "true beliefs" or by scientific discourse?
Get with it Lar.
I already made this clear. And like the huge jerk that you are, you pretended that it never happened and tried to change the subject.Once again, it's probably time to have your diaper changed. After you've grown up and can articulate some compelling fact-based reason to engage in discrimination against gay people, I'm all ears. In the meantime, suck on a pacifier.
While clearly not worth responding to, I just thought that little bit of classic Larry-speak was worth reposting for those with a morbid curiosity.
posted on 03.09.2005 5:37 PM42
If Phil refuses is he guilty of murder?
Only if Phil, by act of copulation or otherwise, cause this person to lose blood and subsequently die.
posted on 03.09.2005 5:40 PM43
I suppose if I really wanted to defend "hate crimes" legislation I might refer to the need to reign in certain "activist" judges who repeatedly give the lightest possible sentences to criminals whose actions were clearly motivated by bigotry and/or hatred of one or more suspect classes.
posted on 03.09.2005 5:44 PM44
Blah blah blah Ed.
Ed whines about an alleged lack of "substantive" matter in my posts but all he has done is weep since I pointed out his bogus statement about "true beliefs" and what such beliefs justify (a statement which he still pretends not to have made!!!).
"And as I've explained, Joe said ... that if homosexuality was found to be preventable it would probably be reclassified as a disease."
Sure Ed. Brown eyes are preventable and much more easily preventable than homosexuality. They are not classified as a disease nor do I expect they ever will be (although the Christians at the Church of the Creator might disagree).
Again, my point was that Joe's bizarre "beliefs" about the "disease of gayness," whether "truly believed" or merely "hunches," are informed more by Joe's ancient holy book than they are by scientific facts.
You can spin all you want Ed. When I was a child I enjoyed spinning in circles, too. As I grew up, however, I tired of falling down. When are you going to tire of falling down, Ed?
posted on 03.09.2005 5:56 PM45
"He then goes on to say that until recently "ego-dystonic homosexuality" was classified as a disease under the DSM-II."
Sure. And until recently blacks had to drink at special bubblers because white southern Christians thought they were sub-human.
You really don't get it, Ed. Or perhaps you do and you're just keeping your criticism "in the family."
posted on 03.09.2005 6:02 PM46
Hmmm, how about an employer who made sure his building was the most handicapped unfriendly possible. He never rejects a handicapped job applicant because he never gets one! Anti-discrimination law would not be on his side.
Clearly. But I'm not connecting the dots here. How does this apply?
I understand pro-lifers see a distinction between abortion and avoiding pregnancy but they are the ones that are trying this odd application of anti-discrimination law. If the gov't can stop you from discriminating when you choose abortion what logical reason is there for the gov't to be powerless to stop you in practicing conception discrimination?
Are you saying you don't make the distinction between abortion and avoiding pregancy? I must be misunderstanding you here. Anyway, I think we can all agree that an abortion is the taking of a life (whatever we call that life). I think one of the ideas behind this proposal is to get people to talk about when it may be innappropriate to take that life. We've already deemed that taking that life through the procedure called "partial birth abortion" is wrong. Is there any other case where it may be wrong? That's the question at hand.
Well which one is it, do we fail to treat murders harshly enough or do we tend to give them the harshest sentence possible? Always check the last part of your paragraph to make sure it doesn't contradict the first part!
Wait, don't confuse the Texas criminal justice system with the prevailing attitudes. Texas is a world unto itself. But a prevailing attitude in many segments of the country is that the death penalty should be outlawed. It certainly is for all intents and purposes in many states.
Anyway Byrd's killers are on the extreme end of hate crimes. I would say most hate crimes cluster around the misdomenor area...petty vandalism, minor harrassment and such. In those cases you would want to see a distinction between the kid who spray paints a wall 'cause he's just a mundane trouble maker versus the guy who spray paints a threat on someone's house.
There already is. One case is vandalism and the other is harrassment. Harrassment, and threats of bolidy harm, are already treated more severely than vandalism.
posted on 03.09.2005 6:02 PM47
Ed whines about an alleged lack of "substantive" matter in my posts but all he has done is weep since I pointed out his bogus statement about "true beliefs" and what such beliefs justify (a statement which he still pretends not to have made!!!).
Never pretended not to make the statement I just pointed out that you are confusing two clearly distinct ideas.
Sure Ed. Brown eyes are preventable and much more easily preventable than homosexuality. They are not classified as a disease nor do I expect they ever will be (although the Christians at the Church of the Creator might disagree). Again, my point was that Joe's bizarre "beliefs" about the "disease of gayness," whether "truly believed" or merely "hunches," are informed more by Joe's ancient holy book than they are by scientific facts. You can spin all you want Ed. When I was a child I enjoyed spinning in circles, too. As I grew up, however, I tired of falling down. When are you going to tire of falling down, Ed?
Wait, look over there. No, wait, here it is up here! No, down there...
...crap, I'm sure there was a point somewhere in there.
posted on 03.09.2005 6:07 PM48
Sure. And until recently blacks had to drink at special bubblers because white southern Christians thought they were sub-human.
Okay, now I see the problem. You have to read the sentences in consecutive order Lar. It makes more sense that way.
posted on 03.09.2005 6:09 PM49
Ed writes
"He then goes on to say that until recently "ego-dystonic homosexuality" was classified as a disease under the DSM-II."
Sure, Ed. And until recently blacks had to drink at special bubblers because white southern Christians thought they were sub-human.
You really don't get it, Ed. Or perhaps you do and you're just keeping your criticism "in the family."
And yes, this is a repost Ed. I just want to underscore your inability to reply "substantively" to the arguments which nullify your tripe (a lack of "substance" being your favorite whine about others' posts, next to complaining about the persecution of Christians).
posted on 03.09.2005 6:32 PM50
Ed writes
"And as I've explained, Joe said ... that if homosexuality was found to be preventable it would probably be reclassified as a disease."
Sure Ed. Brown eyes are preventable and much more easily preventable than homosexuality. They are not classified as a disease nor do I expect they ever will be (although the Christians at the Church of the Creator might disagree).
Again, my point was that Joe's bizarre "beliefs" about the "disease of gayness," whether "truly believed" or merely "hunches," are informed more by Joe's ancient holy book than they are by scientific facts.
[Another example of a substantive argument that Ed ran away from -- note that such arguments appear in nearly all of my comments to this thread whereas Ed's are devoted to whining or dissembling about what he intended to say]
posted on 03.09.2005 6:35 PM51
Ed writes
"you're already resorting to personal attacks because you've run out of any substantive arguments."
and then he writes
"you've completely run out of anything substantive to say"
and then he responds to a point which illustrates his (and Joe's) faulty logic by writing
"No, wait, here it is up here! No, down there"
Therefore, Mr. Ed = hypocrite.
Nothing new here, of course. This is at least the third time that Ed has resorted to dissembling about his own posts rather than admit that he spoke out of his behind.
A fine example for Christians everywhere -- except for those Christians that are sometimes wrong (doesn't include the Johnsonite Christian sect).
posted on 03.09.2005 6:41 PM52
And yes, this is a repost Ed. I just want to underscore your inability to reply "substantively" to the arguments which nullify your tripe (a lack of "substance" being your favorite whine about others' posts, next to complaining about the persecution of Christians).
I can't reply to it as stated because you so missed the point. Pulling out one sentence completely out of context and replying to it was simply ridiculous so I responded in kind. Anyone who is really interested in knowing the truth of the matter (which necessarily excludes Larry) can review the thread.
I won't respond to the comment about Blacks being thought of as "sub-human" because its a red herring.
Furthermore, note Larry's continued use of hyperbole. I never "whined" or said anything about Christian persecution in this thread. I only remarked on Larry's continued over-generalization about what he thinks the beliefs of Christians are. To equate Larry's nonsense with persecution is a bit self-aggrandizing. Since we're discussing the DSM, that one falls under Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
posted on 03.09.2005 6:46 PM53
Nothing new here, of course. This is at least the third time that Ed has resorted to dissembling about his own posts rather than admit that he spoke out of his behind.
Tell me two things, Lar. One, where has I dissembled anything I've said. And two, what is it that you are referring to as "Johnsonite"?
posted on 03.09.2005 6:48 PM55
Ed this is just more of the same. You want to talk about me.
I want you to explain to me why you think it reasonable to state that (1) homosexuality is likely to be considered a disease once it becomes "preventable", and also (2) why it reasonable to state that a "cure" for homosexuality is going to present itself any time in the near future.
Those are the issues which you keep evading.
"I only remarked on Larry's continued over-generalization about what he thinks the beliefs of Christians are."
What I "think" Christians believe? Sorry man. As I said, I congratulate Phil and you if you refuse to recite from the abstinence-only script. But it is not over-generalizing to say that Christians wrote that script. And to try to make an issue out of it, to discredit my comment, just demonstrates a weak skin or an inability to address the point which is that the abstinence-only position is incredibly hypocritical but not surprisingly so.
"Johnsonite" as in Philip Johnson as in "materialists are the enemy" as in "put Jesus back in the center of society where he belongs" as in "wedge strategy" etc., etc.
posted on 03.09.2005 7:04 PM56
""Whether Christians should support prenatal measures that would prevent a child from being “born gay” is a point for further debate. But what should not be open for discussion is for evangelical and other Biblical Christians to accept the idea that homosexuality should be considered a “mental illness.” Orthodox Christianity holds a high regard for human dignity and classifying such behavior as a sickness removes the moral responsibility for the behavior from the individual. The value of human dignity is denigrated when free will and responsibility are replaced by biological determinism.""
Actually, i wouldn't argue with this myself, but i see room to differ from the above. To borrow your example of alcoholism, i have never heard of anyone being born alcoholic. i mean, there are apparently precursors that make alcoholism more likely in some than others, however you'd still have to actually drink before become a fall-over drunk alcoholic.
similarly, one could suppose, hypothetically, that homosexuality is a mental illness, but only occurs if one makes free choices which aggravates an existing precursor or even leads to a whole new condition.
i've seen some evangelicals go as far as suppose that even if homosexual desires are an inherited trait, it is due to the consequences of original sin, and you are still responsible for your choices because you still have the capability to resist those desires. much like a herterosexual, unmarried individual: he didn't ask for the desires of the flesh, but he can choose to be disciplined and wait until marriage (i know that sounds impossible, especially for high school students, but trust me it is not for the believer with God on his or her side).
posted on 03.09.2005 8:28 PM57
"The value of human dignity is denigrated when free will and responsibility are replaced by biological determinism."
Unfortunately for this vapid statement, gay people are no less responsible than heterosexual people and "choose" their sexual preference just as heterosexual people do, and they also choose their salad dressing just as heterosexual people do. How is human dignity or free will denigrated by any of this?
Not at all.
What is denigrating to human dignity is people with dubious scientific credentials working very diligently to classify a group of human beings as "diseased" a quarter century after a vastly more informed group of people decided that such a classification was a mistake.
Mr. Ed claims that references to past instances where allegedly Christian people were disgustingly wrong about their efforts to classify and discriminate against people is a "red herring". He couldn't possibly be more wrong and as anti-gay bigotry is trampled by the march of time he will learn to appreciate how silly such claims sound to those who have cast aside the small-minded prejudices of their mommies and daddies.
posted on 03.09.2005 8:47 PM58
You know, I was just reading this article on townhall.com and well.....
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ryanzempel/rz20050308.shtml
"Often LGBT people refuse to accept our message simply because they perceive an ulterior motive on our part. They know that, often, Christians who show them love are doing it only so we can eventually talk them into "going straight." So we must show love to homosexuals regardless of whether they want to change. Real love does not demand anything in return."posted on 03.09.2005 8:54 PMUnconditional love -- now there's a novel idea. When a call to unconditional love can be legitimately described as a fresh Christian approach, something has gone very wrong.
It's time for many Christians to temporarily set aside the books on how to oppose homosexuals politically, and pick up one on how to love them personally.
59
Oops. hit enter too quickly. The above statements are from the article on townhall. Not my own.
posted on 03.09.2005 8:56 PM60
I want you to explain to me why you think it reasonable to state that (1) homosexuality is likely to be considered a disease once it becomes "preventable", and also (2) why it reasonable to state that a "cure" for homosexuality is going to present itself any time in the near future. Those are the issues which you keep evading.
Oh for crying out loud, Larry! Okay, let me try this one more time. I never claimed that homosexuality would be considered a disease if it became considered as preventable. Joe said that it was his "guess" this would happen. So you need to ask him.
Once more, I was responding to your assertion that Joe would like to hasten the day that such a classification was made. The one, the only thing I said was that it was not inconsistent for Joe to want to hasten that day because if he "truly believes" homosexuality is distructive to the actors then he'd want to see those actors cured. Do you get the point here? Joe would (probably) like to see the day homosexuality was considered curable by the mental health establishment because he believes it is curable and wants to see homosexuals cured. Get it? Are you still with me?
But it is not over-generalizing to say that Christians wrote that script.
Even if that was true don't you see the logical mistake in your argument? You're essentially saying that because all x are y then all y are x. I don't correct you about it because I'm thin-skinned, I correct you because its the only way this kind of ignorance will stop. Just so you know, I also correct people who tell me that all Blacks are this or all Mexicans are that. And, yes, it is the same kind of bigotry.
"Johnsonite" as in Philip Johnson as in "materialists are the enemy" as in "put Jesus back in the center of society where he belongs" as in "wedge strategy" etc., etc.
I see. So you're using Johnsonite as a derogatory term to lump Christians together then. Isn't the exactly what I cautioned you about before? Really, Larry, a person can like gays and non-Caucasians and still be a bigot.
posted on 03.09.2005 8:57 PM61
Regarding Joe's hypothetical:
For better or for worse, science will ultimately erase any biological basis for homosexuality. What won’t be eradicated, however, is homosexual behavior. From the soldier’s camps of ancient Rome to our present-day prisons, sodomy has remained a sexual practice among heterosexuals. The behavior won't go away even if the biological basis for the "orientation" does.
I wouldn't count us out so quickly. The genetics and mechanics of homosexuality seem to have their roots in the essential elements of being male or female. You may not be able to remove the potential without creating asexual or even genderless babies. If that happens, you will have a lot more to worry about than whether Billy falls in love with the boy next door.
Of course, regarding homosexual or heterosexual sex, neither one is somehow more "pure" than the other. That's mere sexual arrogance and provincialism.
posted on 03.09.2005 9:03 PM62
Mr. Ed claims that references to past instances where allegedly Christian people were disgustingly wrong about their efforts to classify and discriminate against people is a "red herring". He couldn't possibly be more wrong and as anti-gay bigotry is trampled by the march of time he will learn to appreciate how silly such claims sound to those who have cast aside the small-minded prejudices of their mommies and daddies.
Do pay attention Larry. Your point was a red herring to the argument that we were discussing at the time because nobody was trying to make such a classification. See, Lar, a red herring is a red herring because of its lack of relevance to... what? Yes, the topic! You always seem to want to neglect the topic and throw in some emotional trigger point. But what does it prove? Nothing except that you are having problems debating the argument.
posted on 03.09.2005 9:03 PM63
Of course, regarding homosexual or heterosexual sex, neither one is somehow more "pure" than the other. That's mere sexual arrogance and provincialism.
Well, depending on what we're talking about, epidemiologically speaking, yes, one is more pure than the other.
posted on 03.09.2005 9:08 PM64
Sigh -- here I go again, refreshing Ed's "poor memory."
I wrote
"Somehow I suspect that Joe is LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT DAY AND WILL HELP OUT WHERE HE CAN TO HASTEN ITS ARRIVAL."
Ed's reply was
"If Joe truly believes homosexual actions are dangerous to the actors then wouldn't he be completely justified in wanting those actors cured?"
Later, after it was explained to Ed why Joe's "true beliefs" do not "completely justify" Joe's efforts to "help out where he can to hasten the arrival of the day when homosexuality is considered a disease again", Ed spins thusly:
"The one, the only thing I said was that it was not inconsistent for Joe to want to hasten that day because if he "truly believes" homosexuality is distructive to the actors then he'd want to see those actors cured."
But Ed you were responding directly to my statement which clearly was a criticsm of Joe's actions and whether they were "justified" by his "true beliefs", as were all my subsequent statements.
If your point was that a person's belief in something "justifies" that person's private *wish* for something else, well, that is a really really lame point. Forgive me for giving you that much credit, Ed. I couldn't possibly imagine that you would be stating something so transparent and obvious as "People are free to believe whatever crap they want to."
As to your other complaint about the "over-generalizations", it is bogus.
Saying that "Christians wrote the abstinence-only script" is like saying "Republicans want to dismantle social security." You can call that "bigotry" until you're blue in the face. That won't make it so.
posted on 03.09.2005 9:40 PM
65
NPD
"The most telling thing that narcissists do is contradict themselves. They will do this virtually in the same sentence, without even stopping to take a breath. It can be trivial (e.g., about what they want for lunch) or it can be serious. When you ask them which one they mean, they'll deny ever saying the first one, though it may literally have been only seconds since they said it -- really, how could you think they'd ever have said that? You need to have your head examined! They will contradict FACTS. They will misquote you to yourself. If you disagree with them, they'll say you're lying, making stuff up, or are crazy. ...
If ... you get into disputes with narcissists over their casual dishonesty and cruelty to other people. Trying to reform narcissists by reasoning with them or by appealing to their better nature is about as effective as spitting in the ocean. What you see is what you get: they have no better nature. The fundamental problem here is that narcissists lack empathy.
Lacking empathy is a profound disturbance to the narcissist's thinking (cognition) and feeling (affectivity). Even when very intelligent, narcissists can't reason well ... They don't understand the meaning of what people say and they don't grasp the meaning of the written word either -- (Discussions with narcissists can be really weird and disconcerting; they seem to think that using some of the same words means that they are following a line of conversation or reasoning. Thus, they will go off on tangents and irrelevancies, apparently in the blithe delusion that they understand what others are talking about.) This is not merely a bad habit -- it's a cognitive deficiency. Narcissists pay attention only to themselves and stuff that affects them personally. However, since they don't know what other people are doing, narcissists can't judge what will affect them personally and seem never to learn that when they cause trouble they will get trouble back. They won't take other people's feelings into consideration and so they overlook ... that most people get really pissed off by being lied to or lied about."
66
Why am I still trying to explain this one more time knowing that Larry will spin it again?
Joe said:
The question then is what will happen to gays and lesbians when homosexuality becomes “preventable?” My guess it that it won’t be long before "being gay" is once again classified under the disease model of behavior and is considered a treatable condition
Then you said:
Somehow I suspect that Joe is LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT DAY AND WILL HELP OUT WHERE HE CAN TO HASTEN ITS ARRIVAL.
What day is that, Lar? It is the day that we discover homosexuality to be preventable and that it becomes reclassified as a treatable disease. As much as you'd like, you can't divorce that from the discussion Larry. There's a difference between declaring homosexuality to be preventable and discovering it to be preventable.
Then you said:
Sorry, Ed, merely having a "true belief" is not enough to justify characterizing a vast number of fully functioning and harmless members of society as "diseased".
But, as I've pointed out, you're completely disregarding Joe's point. Neither I, nor Joe in fact, said Christian beliefs were enough to classify homosexuality as a disease. But since it does lead many Christians to believe that homosexuality is destructive it is not inconsistent to hope that people who practice homosexuality would be "cured". Thus, it is also not inconsistent to hope that the mental health establishment soon comes to the same conclusion (of course they won't with out substantial evidence, and then maybe still not). You are the only one who seemed to think anyone here wanted to bring this about by fiat.
But, let me also add, we do know that certain homosexual acts greatly increase health risks. And we know this not simply by Scripture but by medical science.
Then you said:
Sure Ed. Brown eyes are preventable and much more easily preventable than homosexuality. They are not classified as a disease nor do I expect they ever will be (although the Christians at the Church of the Creator might disagree).
Here you almost get the point but then you wander off into nowhere land by comparing homosexuality to eye color and throwing in another red herring, and lie, by implying that the Church of the Creator members are racist. Now, I realize that this stems from a misunderstanding that the Church of the Creator (TE-TA-MA) is the same as the World Church of the Creator (now by court junction no longer allowed to use the name). But either way, you lie since the Matt Hale and the scum at World Church of the Creator, who are blatantly racists, are also self-proclaimed anti-Christian.
Then you try to spin the issue again by saying:
I want you to explain to me why you think it reasonable to state that (1) homosexuality is likely to be considered a disease once it becomes "preventable", and also (2) why it reasonable to state that a "cure" for homosexuality is going to present itself any time in the near future. Those are the issues which you keep evading.
Which is another red herring since you apparently knew that I wasn't asserting either point. So which one is the real issue, Lar?
No, Lar, the facts speak for themselves. You are clearlytrying to spin Joe's argument to try to portray him as some sort of theonomist pushing his Biblical views on everyone else--which is basically what you always try to do.
I'm done.
posted on 03.10.2005 2:11 AM67
Ed, and every Christian in this thread -
Please don't bother with Larry. He ain't gonna change, and he has made it quite obvious.
The best thing is not to give him an audience. Leave him alone.
I read each of his comments. All I have to say is this - "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." (Mat 12.34) And "Those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man." (Mat 15:18)
These come from the same sage you love to deny, man. Too bad you don't want to give him the light of day...
posted on 03.10.2005 3:20 AM68
Are you saying you don't make the distinction between abortion and avoiding pregancy? I must be misunderstanding you here. Anyway, I think we can all agree that an abortion is the taking of a life (whatever we call that life). I think one of the ideas behind this proposal is to get people to talk about when it may be innappropriate to take that life. We've already deemed that taking that life through the procedure called "partial birth abortion" is wrong. Is there any other case where it may be wrong? That's the question at hand.
Is it taking a life when I'm the only one who can give Mr. Ed a blood transfusion to save his life and I refuse because I'm biased against Christians? Is it a 'hate crime'?
There already is. One case is vandalism and the other is harrassment. Harrassment, and threats of bolidy harm, are already treated more severely than vandalism.
Indeed but its a distinction without a difference. You already admitted Mr. Ed that some crimes are more serious because of the implicit threat they send to the community. For example, the radicals in Iraq who kill someone because they support the new gov't commit a larger crime against all of society because they are really attempting to intimidate everyone who supports the gov't rather than just killing an individual person.
Justin:
Actually, i wouldn't argue with this myself, but i see room to differ from the above. To borrow your example of alcoholism, i have never heard of anyone being born alcoholic. i mean, there are apparently precursors that make alcoholism more likely in some than others, however you'd still have to actually drink before become a fall-over drunk alcoholic.
Some argue that there is a propensity for addictive behavior that may manifest itself in various forms (drugs, gambling, sex etc.). To be honest I think our understanding of the mind is along the lines of our understanding of the body around 1900. A lot of what we think we know is wrong but we do have a few good ideas or so.
posted on 03.10.2005 8:45 AM69
Is it taking a life when I'm the only one who can give Mr. Ed a blood transfusion to save his life and I refuse because I'm biased against Christians? Is it a 'hate crime'?
Taking a life? No. Prosecutable under a good samaritan law? Maybe some day. But its still a category error. For one, there is a clear legal distinction between the passive and the active. For example, the courts have ruled in favor of passive euthanasia. That means they make a distinction between causing an individual to die and letting an individual die. Another example of this is a DNR order.
Indeed but its a distinction without a difference. You already admitted Mr. Ed that some crimes are more serious because of the implicit threat they send to the community.
I think there is quite a different between vandalism and harrassment with the threat of bodily harm. And its not necessarily the threat that it sends to the community, although it could be; its the threat it sends to anyone. Let's say, for example, that a person is harrassing and threatening bodily injury of a neighbor because of a property line dispute. If such harrassment is allowed to continue--or is punished by a slap on the wrist--doesn't it send a message to the community that each of us can be harrassed with virtual impunity?
posted on 03.10.2005 12:23 PM70
Ed
"You are clearlytrying to spin Joe's argument to try to portray him as some sort of theonomist pushing his Biblical views on everyone else--which is basically what you always try to do."
I don't have to try. Joe's agenda is plain as paint.
Look at this way Ed. I guarantee you that if we took a large enough group of the most militant Christian fundamentalists and a group of age-matched geographically matched controls, we could identify some genes that are linked to fundamentalism.
So how do you respond to someone who starts spouting off that religious fundamentalism is a preventable genetic neurobiological disease and should be classified as such? And who spends a fair amount of time spinnning facts and dissembling in order to promote that view as widely as possible?
How do you respond Ed? If the promulgator "truly believes" that Biblical literalist and other fundie-type views is a preventable disease, is that person then "completely justified" in your view with spreading his "true beliefs" far and wide? And you'd keep your mouth shut about it?
You keep dodging the issue Ed: a Christian blog that is dedicated at least in part towards having homosexuality classified as a "disease" is a sick piece of work and you support it. I'd like to know why but you aren't willing to tell us. I think I know why that is (besides the fact that you're a dissembling ass).
posted on 03.10.2005 12:30 PM71
Mr. Ed
"since it does lead many Christians to believe that homosexuality is destructive it is not inconsistent to hope that people who practice homosexuality would be "cured"."
It is not inconsistent with the Bible (which can be made to justify just about anything, including slavery, as you are well aware).
But it is inconsistent with reality.
The attempt to warp bigotry into compassion for gay people is just classic fundie double-speak. No one buys it. Unfortunately, not enough people are willing to stand up and yell bull hockey when people like you, Ed, fling that garbage around. I'm not one of those people.
Joe (and you, his li'l buddy) are doing more than just espousing your fantasy that gay people are declared "diseased" and "cured". Joe is ARGUING that there are compelling reasons to have homosexuality classified as a disease in 2005.
Do gay people -- e.g., my gay friends who are raising kids and who are striving for equal treatment under the laws of this country when it comes to benefits for families -- want to be classified as "diseased"???? No they don't.
What's the main difference between classifying Jews or blacks as diseased versus gay people? Oh yeah -- anti-Jew anti-black agenda isn't high on the list for bigmouthed Christian bloggers these days. But the anti-gay agenda sure is.
Care to deny that Ed?
posted on 03.10.2005 12:43 PM72
Taking a life? No. Prosecutable under a good samaritan law? Maybe some day. But its still a category error. For one, there is a clear legal distinction between the passive and the active. For example, the courts have ruled in favor of passive euthanasia. That means they make a distinction between causing an individual to die and letting an individual die. Another example of this is a DNR order.
Let's consider, suppose I wake up and discover myself hooked up to Mr. Ed. The nature of this hookup is that my blood is slowly being given to Mr. Ed who has a bizaar medical condition which requires that some portion of my blood be transferred to him in a very slow manner. The amount of blood needed will not cause me any danger and the hookup is perfectly safe for me aside from the few hours of discomfort necessary.
I choose to pull myself off this machine and leave Mr. Ed to his fate. Murder? It certainly doesn't seem to be a passive act. If I believe Mr Ed to be gay and I perform this act because I hate gays is it a hate crime?
think there is quite a different between vandalism and harrassment with the threat of bodily harm. And its not necessarily the threat that it sends to the community, although it could be; its the threat it sends to anyone. Let's say, for example, that a person is harrassing and threatening bodily injury of a neighbor because of a property line dispute. If such harrassment is allowed to continue--or is punished by a slap on the wrist--doesn't it send a message to the community that each of us can be harrassed with virtual impunity?
Of course not but you are comparing apples and oranges. You imagine a hypothetical hate crime to be a different crime than our hypothetical non-hate crime. Imagine vandalism versus vandalism using racial ephitets (or just vandalism that targets minority community members). No threats are made in the 'hate vandalism' so you cannot apply laws against harrassment. Yet I would argue that adding the hate element to the crime does indeed make it worse.
73
I would like us to get back to what I believe is the real problem with the pro-life movement. It is that they spend their time and energy on what are essentially publicity stunts like this. What perfect irony it would be if the culmination of their efforts to outlaw abortion end up outlawing abortions that never happen, which would be the case if this law was passed and survived challenge.
Recall in our previous abortion debate it was noted that some statistics indicate abortion was nearly as common pre-Roe than post-Roe. Not only that, we know that there are many examples of countries with lower abortion rates despite it being legal as well as countries with higher abortion rates despite being 'pro-life' on paper.
In a slightly different universe there may exist a pro-life movement that did not make legalisms its top priority nor did it make trying to win semantic word games their #1 goal. In that universe the movement made reducing abortion their #1 goal and, while not necessarily agreeing with Roe, accepted it as the rules of the game. In that universe actual abortions did not happen because that pro-life movement concentrated on getting people to 'choose life'...even if it meant stepping on toes to guarantee that no one who 'choose life' would be left without resources & support. In that universe the pro-lifers advanced their goal by making tactical alliances with liberals by noting that making it easier for women to have their babies also increased their choices by eliminating financial and social stigmas that pushed women towards abortions that maybe they did not really want to begin with.
Sadly we don't live in that world. We live in this one where the mindless and the intellectual sludge on both sides end up with the winning word.
posted on 03.10.2005 1:38 PM74
Let's consider, suppose I wake up and discover myself hooked up to Mr. Ed. The nature of this hookup is that my blood is slowly being given to Mr. Ed who has a bizaar medical condition which requires that some portion of my blood be transferred to him in a very slow manner. The amount of blood needed will not cause me any danger and the hookup is perfectly safe for me aside from the few hours of discomfort necessary.
Now that's a different point. But I would argue that your rights were infringed by the fact that you were hooked up to me against your will. Thus, you carry no personal obligation to remain my blood donor. But, Boon, you make a good argument for the right to abortion for the case of rape. This is where I draw the line of what I think should be legal. I believe there is a strong case to be made for legal abortion in cases of rape and mortal danger to the mother. But I also believe, personally, that a woman who has been raped should not have an abortion. I firmly believe that she will more than likely regret an abortion at some point in her life but will be very less likely to regret having a child. So, although I can see legal grounds for abortion in certain circumstances, I only see moral grounds for abortion in the case of mortal danger to the mother.
No threats are made in the 'hate vandalism' so you cannot apply laws against harrassment. Yet I would argue that adding the hate element to the crime does indeed make it worse.
I would argue that vandalism that 'targets' a specific group is threatening. That is, we can't claim that a rock through the window of a Jewish-owned business is targeted vandalism. But we can argue that a swastika painted on the same door is targeted vandalism. There is no explicitely threatening language but the use of a swastika is an implicit threat based on its historical use. Thus, the vandals should be prosecuted for harassment. Now, by definition, harassment is "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such a person and serves no legitimate purpose". This would make a clear distinction between general vandalism and vandalism targeted at a specific person.
posted on 03.10.2005 1:58 PM75
Mr. Ed shares his fetus-lovin' thoughts with us:
"But I also believe, personally, that a woman who has been raped should not have an abortion. I firmly believe that she will more than likely regret an abortion at some point in her life but will be very less likely to regret having a child."
Awww, that's such a wonderful sentiment Mr. Ed. How nice of you to be watching out for women's mental health! Women just need more sensitive guys like you and they'd all feel so much better about having been raped and impregnated.
How many women have you personally known who have been raped and impregnated by their rapist, Ed? Or is this just another example of "completely justified" wishful thinking by a bigoted religious nut (in this case, anti-woman bigotry -- another form of bigotry that finds much support in your holy book)?
Don't be afraid to tell us more about your wonderful "personal beliefs" Ed. Fetus worship is fascinating. It's no coincidence that "fetus" and "jesus" have many of the same letters. Or is it? You tell me, genius.
posted on 03.10.2005 2:30 PM76
Now that's a different point. But I would argue that your rights were infringed by the fact that you were hooked up to me against your will.
I never said I was hooked up against my will. Suppose I initially agreed but then 5 minutes into it I become squimish and change my mind (which is more informed consent, BTW, than most unplanned pregnancies). Perhaps you could sue me for damages in civil court but I doubt you could mount a criminal case for either murder or hate crimes.
I would argue that vandalism that 'targets' a specific group is threatening. That is, we can't claim that a rock through the window of a Jewish-owned business is targeted vandalism. But we can argue that a swastika painted on the same door is targeted vandalism. There is no explicitely threatening language but the use of a swastika is an implicit threat based on its historical use. Thus, the vandals should be prosecuted for harassment.
It sounds as if you approve of hate crimes laws but would apply them by increasing the charges when you feel the criminal was motivated by an attempt to send a message of hate. What if the vandal throws a rock through every Jewish owned business? What if he is on record stating he hates Jews and wishes they would all leave the community (but not threatening any specific Jewish person so you can't claim harassment)??? On the flip side what if the swastica painting vandal has a history of using it in an ahistorical manner? For example, painting it everywhere without regard to Judism or anti-semitism?
Now, by definition, harassment is "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such a person and serves no legitimate purpose". This would make a clear distinction between general vandalism and vandalism targeted at a specific person.
So basically we get hate crimes by simply applying other laws. The 'hate vandal' is, by definition, treated harsher than the mundane vandal. However what you left out here is 'specific person'. It's a stretch for every Jewish person in a neighborhood to claim they were victims of harassment when a person paints a swastica on a tree in a public park.
posted on 03.10.2005 2:54 PM77
Over 44.5 million babies aborted since the 70s.
If they find a reason to prevent so-called 'gay-gene' babies from being aborted, I would applaud that. - Not for the logic behind it, but for the fact that some children would be spared.
And surely it would blow up in the law-makers and supporters' faces. The gay-gene kids would grow up with the idea that they're gay, realize they're not, and become angry at the people who foolishly skewed their whole childhood.
I'm not sure if this would help or hurt the pro-life / anti-murder agenda. Years from now, lawmakers would see what a ridiculous failure it was and go back to non-discriminatory murder of the unborn.
-Neil
78
I would like us to get back to what I believe is the real problem with the pro-life movement. It is that they spend their time and energy on what are essentially publicity stunts like this. What perfect irony it would be if the culmination of their efforts to outlaw abortion end up outlawing abortions that never happen, which would be the case if this law was passed and survived challenge.
Indeed, I have no doubts this would happen as we've seen it happen before. I recall that in the early days of the AIDS crisis the state of New York, which had very thorough interviewing processes, was reporting extraordinarily low incidents of heterosexual transmission (something like 8 cases in 30,000 total). Once the state succumbed to activist pressure and stopped the comprehensive interviewing process, the incidents of heterosexual transmission shot through the roof. What happened? When people lied about their sexual practices the state had to simply take their word for it.
So, I have no doubt that if abortion was outlawed except for cases of rape and incest we'd see a dramatic increase in the incidence of such offences. So, for all intents and purposes, a law against abortion on demad was a law against something that never happened.
Of course there's no current way to determine if a baby is going to be a gay adult. I'm just highlighting the fact that if it ever did become possible and there ever was a law against aborting on the basis of genetic sexual orientation then it would no doubt be a law prohibitng something that "never happened".
Recall in our previous abortion debate it was noted that some statistics indicate abortion was nearly as common pre-Roe than post-Roe. Not only that, we know that there are many examples of countries with lower abortion rates despite it being legal as well as countries with higher abortion rates despite being 'pro-life' on paper.
See my above comment on playing with the numbers. It is not unlikely that a country with liberal abortion laws would also have liberal abortion reporting laws.
In that universe the pro-lifers advanced their goal by making tactical alliances with liberals by noting that making it easier for women to have their babies also increased their choices by eliminating financial and social stigmas that pushed women towards abortions that maybe they did not really want to begin with.
I agree with a lot of what you say here. I think its much easier for the average conservative to spout pro-life views and support pro-life legislators than to get out and help mothers with unwanted pregnancies. We discussed this a bit before and I have to agree that most of the people on the periphery do nothing but talk. But I think there are a good many people involved in the heart of the pro-life movement that are also involved in helping counceling and adoptive services in some way or another and their work shouldn't be discounted. It is just as you say "the mindless and the intellectual sludge on both sides end up with the winning word." And they end up with the camara time which more often than not simply galvanizes peoples preconceived notions.
posted on 03.10.2005 3:18 PM79
I never said I was hooked up against my will. Suppose I initially agreed but then 5 minutes into it I become squimish and change my mind (which is more informed consent, BTW, than most unplanned pregnancies). Perhaps you could sue me for damages in civil court but I doubt you could mount a criminal case for either murder or hate crimes.
If you got into the situation without signed consent then I think the law would be on your side. If you did sign a consent I don't find it implausible that you could be tried for manslaughter. If you removed support because you don't like Christians then that would add an element of malice and, again, its not implausible that you could be tried for murder. I don't think adding the element of "hate" would matter.
It sounds as if you approve of hate crimes laws but would apply them by increasing the charges when you feel the criminal was motivated by an attempt to send a message of hate.
No, I approve of the laws as they currently stand but I think they should be enforced more strictly. As I said, targeted vandalism is essentially harassment and should be treated as such.
What if the vandal throws a rock through every Jewish owned business? What if he is on record stating he hates Jews and wishes they would all leave the community (but not threatening any specific Jewish person so you can't claim harassment)???
I would want that person to be tried for each individual act as an act of harassment and sentenced accordingly. And, as a repeat offender, he would naturally be given the harshest of sentences.
On the flip side what if the swastica painting vandal has a history of using it in an ahistorical manner? For example, painting it everywhere without regard to Judism or anti-semitism?
Well, intent certainly bears on the case. If such a person should obvious lack of ability to understand the nature of the crime then a charge of vandalism would be more appropriate. And, fortunately, we don't see many Tibetan Buddhist vandals.
The 'hate vandal' is, by definition, treated harsher than the mundane vandal.
Close. The "hate vandal" is treated as what he is: guilty of harassment.
However what you left out here is 'specific person'. It's a stretch for every Jewish person in a neighborhood to