With gay rights it’s all about who you know
Burning of Sodomites (detail). Illustration: Diebold Schilling, from Chronik der Burgunderkriege, 1482
One of the more fascinating aspects of the gay rights revolution over the last decade is that Americans appear to be shifting their positions with astonishing speed.
In the last few weeks, conservative Republican Senator Rob Portman endorsed same-sex marriage, and traditional values standard bearer Paul Ryan withdrew his opposition to adoption rights for gay couples.
Polls show that citizens are making the same flip, transitioning from fierce opposition and disgust to grudging acceptance to a kind of ho-hum Who cares? at a pace that makes you blink.
One factor driving this trend is the simple reality that more gays and lesbians are visible, not only on TV and in movies, but in our every-day lives.
America is still a hugely segregated country. It’s possible to live much of your life without having much to do with people of different races or ethnicities.
But getting through life these days without having a gay kid, or a lesbian niece or a co-worker in a committed same-sex relationship? That’s pretty tough even in rural “red” states.
In an interview with reporters in Ohio, Rob Portman described the phenomenon of learning about his son’s homosexuality this way.
“It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that’s of a dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have — to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years.”
It turns out familiarity has long been a factor in erasing, or at least easing, the contempt that some people feel toward homosexuals.
In the 1400s, the big debate in the Republic of Venice was not whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry.
It was whether they should be burned alive or executed first and then burned later, the latter being considered a far more merciful and Christian punishment.
The trouble was that too many people in the city were gay, or knew gays, so by 1509 there were draconian laws on the books but they were rarely being enforced. Here’s how one critic of homosexuality described the problem.
“The persons responsible for their [homosexuals’] execution were themselves involved in these offenses and had no heart to carry out the punishment, for they feared that the same penalty might fall upon themselves or their own children. or these reasons, the thing was suppressed and the fire which these criminals deserved was quenched and doused with water.”
Quotes like this are worth keeping in mind when people question why gays are so vocal or visible. Why do they campaign for their rights so aggressively and noisily? Why not keep their sexuality to themselves?
Because the alternative is to be isolated, to be the easy target for derision, prejudice and (yes) bigoted violence. It’s harder to hate gays when they’re our kids, or our parents or our coworkers.
The power of ending silence should be obvious by now. This week, pro-basketball player Jason Collins “came out” — the first male professional athlete in a team sport to do so.
To be clear, the longstanding code of secrecy on the part of gays in his industry didn’t put people at risk of execution. But it clearly contributed to a climate of fear and deception and oppression.
“I wish I wasn’t the kid in the classroom raising his hand and saying, I’m different,” Collins told Sports Illustrated. “If I had my way, someone else would have already done this. Nobody has, which is why I’m raising my hand.”
Some critics have questioned whether Collins’ move was heroic, or courageous. Fair enough. What seems clear though is that this kind of honesty and openness changes minds and changes hearts. It’s changing our society.
Otherwise, this blog would just be a bunch of “me-too” thinkers.
And what is the point of that?
So the argument here is that there is no opinion that is worthy of mockery and ridicule?
How about the opinion that people of color should be property, to be bought and sold, and to be abused or killed at the owners whim…
I’m sorry, but if anyone expresses that opinion… I am going to mock, and ridicule, and judge, and dismiss them. As we all should.
Opinions are NOT sacred or protected. There are such things as wrong, vile, deranged, or simply dumb opinions. The above, being an example.
Listen to everyone’s opinion in a conversation… yes. Consider them honestly… yes, absolutely. But suggesting that we should never mock, challenge, or attack them? Well, I mock, challenge, and attack that.
And btw, I am not really seeing where anyone was ridiculed or attacked in any of these comments.
It is possible I’m missing something obvious. Can someone please quote the sentence, or sentences, that are so offensive?
tell you what, larry. when i see something i think is ridiculous, i’m going to keep using, heaven forbid, techniques of rhetoric to challenge it. if that bothers you so much, or if you think i’m crossing a line, then you can keep crying foul. and then we’ll see who wins!
if i’m coming off as a big meanie to most people, and you’re drawing attention to that, then people will be less receptive to what i’m saying. that will undermine the substantive points i’m trying to make, and i’ll come out behind.
the other possibility is that the techniques of rhetoric i use will, in most people’s eyes, help to underscore that the thing i think is ridiculous really is ridiculous. and that by crying foul, you’ll come off as a thin-skinned wimp who, for whatever reason, won’t engage on substance and can’t handle the criticism. sometimes you may even, ahem, lose your temper a little (i’m kinda bummed that i missed your original mutual masturbation comment), which will only further erode your credibility with everyone else here. what’s more, i think the most effective way to deal with sarcasm is to explain why it’s substantively wrong or misplaced. that sort of thing can be really embarrassing to the person who started the sarcasm. but by choosing to focus on the sarcasm/mocking/what-have-you itself, you forgo the opportunity to score the bigger point. on all of these counts i’ll come out ahead.
i think this seems like a fair deal for both of us.
dave, i think larry must be upset that i wrote “since jdm seems to be having a hard time getting the point, here it is again.” maybe also (to jdm) “but if you don’t, then this amounts to nothing but more of the usual baseless persecution complex stuff from you.”
i know, the horror.
In an age when illness, including mental illness, was believed to be caused by demonic possession and a direct punishment from one’s god, when the world was believed to be flat and the center of the universe, when creation was believed to have occurred over a 6 day period sone few thousand years ago, when sexual orientation was believed to be a matter of choice,and when sex was believed to be specifically and exclusively for procreation, it’s understandable that many, perhaps all, religions considered homosexuality an abomination.
I’d like to believe we’ve learned a few things over time.
dave: “So the argument here is that there is no opinion that is worthy of mockery and ridicule?”
No.
Opinions are absolutely up for discussion.
Some people find it necessary to ridicule the person with the opinion instead of the opinion.
Speculation as to why probably won’t be productive, but I have my opinions on that, too.
i’ve been wanting to make basically this point myself for a while now, but dave put it so beautifully that i have to quote almost the whole thing:
i’ve gotten the same vibe from larry too. those who feel otherwise are of course welcome to disagree, but to me, it’s like he feels entitled to have his opinions and arguments respected.
that’s not how it works.
the things we think about the world have to be founded on evidence bound together by logic. if you want to put forth an opinion, then you should be ready to support yourself by explaining the evidence and reasoning behind it. and then your evidence and reasoning becomes subject to scrutiny. and it needs to withstand that scrutiny for your opinion to hold up.
if you think your critics are wrong, then engage with them. explain why their counterarguments are wrong, or cite more evidence, or whatever. if you can’t do that, then your opinion doesn’t stand up, and you should change your mind. the things we think have to survive contact with reality.
HT:
Facts can be such pesky things. There are too many peoploe who refuse to allow them to interfere with their opinions or world views. I am certain you know that is not directed at you.
Like you, I welcome disagreement. It’s the antidote to my ignorance.
that’s exactly the right attitude, dan!
Well, HT, to paraphrase someone (in)famous who said, “There are things we don’t know we don’t know we don’t know; ya know?”…or something like that.
here’s an example of what i’m talking about at 2:33. actually, it’s the same example i summarized earlier, but whatevs.
in this thread, jdm charged brian with anti-christian bias in the original post. after explaining why he felt that way, i and others said no no no, the facts you’re citing don’t support your charge and here’s why. jdm has made many subsequent comments in this thread, including kinda sorta doubling down on the charge of name-calling against christians, but he still hasn’t addressed that crucial point!
he has failed to support his opinion. he should either a) finally engage with what the rest of us have said and explain why it’s wrong, or b) withdraw his opinion.
otherwise, i hope larry won’t get too upset if i accuse jdm of acting like a clown.
Apparently there are some who still sink into name calling instead of engaging in thoughtful opinion.
As a matter of fact, I clarified my opinion directly with Brian Mann.
”
Brian Mann: “I also think it’s perfectly reasonable for Christians to wrestle publicly with the fact that their views about homosexuality — entirely mainstream and “normal” just a few years ago — are now being perceived (or portrayed) more and more as intolerance or bigotry.”
Well said.
I think that society as whole once publicly resorted to name-calling gays, and it may very well be said that the Christian community had better figure out that is no longer the way to deal with this issue.
The other side of the coin is that it will no longer be acceptable to name-call Christians as something less than mainstream. Otherwise, it is just a way of substitution. i.e. “we can no longer bash gays, so let’s bash Christians”.
We’ll see how that plays out. It is man’s fallen nature to want to bash someone.
“
Um…I can’t speak for anyone else on this thread, but I personally don’t accept that it’s name calling or bashing to say I believe Christian thought in general is out of the mainstream. I may be wrong, but it’s what I believe. If a Christian chooses to disagree with me, he/she is not bashing me by stating so. I’m not attacking Christians; disagreeing with my perception of Christian thought is not attacking me.
i guess i’m sorry jdm? if that’s your way of retracting the stuff about brian being anti-christian because he didn’t cite examples of brutalities towards gays from other religions, then that’s great.
on the other hand, like dave said, what’s up with this “it will no longer be acceptable to name-call Christians as something less than mainstream”? are you suggesting name calling has ever been acceptable? what do you even mean?
just to be forthright, i ask because i really do think the gop base, and you in particular, have an unfounded persecution complex, and this pricks my ears. i’d love to hear you explain.
hermit thrush: “just to be forthright, i ask because i really do think the gop base, and you in particular, have an unfounded persecution complex, and this pricks my ears. i’d love to hear you explain.”
Not at all. I don’t believe I have an unfounded persecution complex.
In my explanation to Brian, I recalled that the euphemisms we used about gays were commonplace. I certainly did not learn them solely from church attendance.
While it is true that some of society has “wised up” to not calling gays pejorative euphemisms, I think that proportionately, the Christian society has made about the same amount of strides. Neither has fully arrived.
Rather than take us back to the 1400s, and “merciful and Christian punishment” of buring at the stake, why not look at the 2013 punishment offered by a large, religious sect, radical Islam.
That would be much more appropo.
*burning*
apropos to what?
if you mean to brian’s post, then no it wouldn’t. the reason why has been pointed out over and over in this thread. brian’s post was about how familiarity with homosexuality reduces hostility towards it. his example from the 1400s fits in with that. modern-day islam, as discussed by you, does not.
or do you mean apropos to something else?
Really, how absurd. No one has bashed Christians. Yet JDM has hijacked this post to make it about Christian-bashing. Yet no one has bashed Christians.
Probably, somehow, this post will be interpreted as bashing Christians (and insulting Larry).
“Do some opinions deserve ridicule, insults and mockery? Yes.”
Thanks, Will Doolittle, for summing it all up. Your belief is wrong, uncivilized and dangerous. You should try that theory out in your local pub tonight and see what people think of it. It is exactly your style of intolerance that is the problem: one group of people deciding it is OK to judge others based on their beliefs. It’s never right, no matter what rationale, proof, logic or techniques of rhetoric you come up with.
Will Doolittle:” Yet JDM has hijacked this post”
I had three posts that were “on topic” where I explained my position in increasing levels of detail.
The hijacking occurred by others, now somewhat resolved, and the bunny trail that ensued.
Hey Will, what do you think about Brian’s original topic? Or is your interest here merely to comment on the opinions of one, JDM?
c’mon, larry. obviously there are different standards for discourse in different settings. i love everyone here, but it’s not like the in box comments is just like sitting around the table at thanksgiving.
there’s a long tradition of sarcasm in the written word going back to about forever. geez, look at your first comment in this thread:
sounds pretty sarcastic to me! are you trying to tell us now that you shouldn’t have written that?
Okay, I was about to be really snide, but I’ll back off a little to make one point that I often fail to remember:
People are often dealing with a multitude of their own problems and sometimes we need to be thoughtful of other people’s feelings.
That being said, I think JDM and OL enjoy the fray. And if they are game, I’m game.
khl: “That being said, I think JDM and OL enjoy the fray. And if they are game, I’m game.”
well said.
All I know is that whenever I read one of Larry’s comments, I have an insatiable urge to masturbate.
I also think the catamite exchange is a prime example of “good discussion.”
So thanks everybody!
oa, you don’t know how long I’ve been holding that catamite card just waiting to use it. It’s surprisingly hard to work into a discussion.
The wonderful thing about this country though from a Christian perspective is that I am free to talk about Jesus and His path and the fact that He is indeed through His voluntary sacrifice and love for us; He has defeated sin, death and Satan and indeed is the only way to God. Now of course to even say that truth is a problem in some other countries in fact it would get you killed in some countries so from a Christian perspective we have a wonderful freedom it is too bad we have really wasted it in many ways by our own actions and sin.
larry, if that’s not “toxic certitude,” then what is?
(not that i think there’s anything wrong with forcefully made points. just pointing out the inconsistency.)
still waiting for jdm to engage with the point made most recently in my 4:22 comment.
The problem with this blog topic is that there are two separate issues.
Brian M. is correct when he argues gays have gained more acceptance as more and more people know men and women who are homosexuals. Fewer and fewer people dislike someone just because they are homosexuals.
But this acceptance does not always translate into being in favor of men marrying men or women marrying women.
There is also a bit of presumption going on and this presumption applies to straights as well as gays. Not everyone who wants to have a sexual life wants to get married in order to have it – and I will bet there are fewer (lower percentage of) gays who want to get married than there are straights who want to get married.
Not everyone wants kids. Not everyone wants to be tied down with just one someone.
Pete, what difference does it make what percentage of gays want to get married? (And it’s not at all clear to me whether that speculation is true or likely.) The point is that those who do want to get married should have the freedom to do so, regardless of the religious convictions of others. Very simple concept.
Brian Mann’s original points:
“Why not keep their sexuality to themselves?
Because the alternative is to be isolated, to be the easy target for derision, prejudice and (yes) bigoted violence. It’s harder to hate gays when they’re our kids, or our parents or our coworkers.”
—-
Substitute Christianity for sexuality (just for thought)
—-
Why not keep their Christianity to themselves?
Because the alternative is to be isolated, to be the easy target for derision, prejudice and (yes) bigoted violence. It’s harder to hate Christians when they’re our kids, or our parents or our coworkers.
What’s good for one is good for another.
I hope we fully embrace that JDM. Christians are called to speak out on a variety of issues I am sure many people would like all religious devotion and faith to go away to disappear so in that regard it is somewhat the same as wanting gays to be quite. But I think most open minded people do accept the fact that we have a right to speak and to spread the Gospel, but of course this would go for all including gay people.
But I think this is true for many groups. I have a family member (cousin) who practices polygamy,the family seems very normal and happy to me. Consider living together outside of marriage, at one time this was considered quite bad from a societal standpoint. Now its normal we all know people who live together, our governor lives with his girlfriend in the Gov’s mansion. So as these different lifestyles come out they will all become more accepted.
From a Christian standpoint however we have a specific path we are called to walk, I think our concern is that we be allowed to follow that calling and be allowed to promote that calling as the truth. Right now we can in this country which we must appreciate.
Has anyone got the guts to be themselves without labels?
Why do you need to belong?
As soon as you start defining yourself, you start defining everyone.
The curse began when we started naming the plants and animals – and forgot that we too are animals.
And to not be accused of being phobic about Christianity, my question is still valid with other substitutions.
Because the alternative is to be isolated, to be the easy target for derision, prejudice and (yes) bigoted violence. It’s harder to hate gays when they’re our kids, or our parents or our coworkers.”
—-
Substitute muslim faith for sexuality (just for thought)
—-
Why not keep their muslim faith to themselves?
Because the alternative is to be isolated, to be the easy target for derision, prejudice and (yes) bigoted violence. It’s harder to hate people of the muslim faith when they’re our kids, or our parents or our coworkers.
JDM, there is some validity to your point in substituting Christians or Muslims into the statements above. But not in our time. There already is general acceptance of most faiths in this country and in most other countries around the world. But people of differing sexual orientation are really just starting to gain widespread acceptance in many societies and still not at all in some societies.
It’s been a long time since most Christians had to fear being thrown to the lions, and I don’t remember anyone ever being taunted on the playground for being Christian.
In this country that is true and in most of the Western Democracies that is true.
However Christians are in great danger in a good portion of the Middle East, China and Africa, they are indeed stoned, killed, thrown in prison and murdered for being Christian. The sentence for converting to Christianity in many parts of the middle east is death.
As far as being taunted on the play ground for being Christian? That indeed does happen right here in the north country. Of course Churches are still being burned, Churches in the north country still face vandalism and that sort of low level hate crime.
Gays indeed face many of these same sorts of threats and persecutions around the globe and right here in the US.
Homophobic violence in the US cannot be put at he feet of Christians however, more likely it can be put at the feet of general bigotry, football teams, hockey teams, drunk closeted bullies and general sociopaths. The really deep seeded gay bullying I have personally witnessed in my life was never from the Church geeks, but from the jocks, the bullies and the big party guys.
Yes, and people who proselytize can be prosecuted in many countries…and sometimes it seems absolutely just though the punishments may be excessive.
Also true that churches are sometimes burned in the North Country. I remember one in Pottersville that was torched a few years back; turns out it was a Christian from a different sect who disagreed with the number of angels dancing on the head of that church’s pin.
But to the point about bullying of gays, virtually all of it I have ever witnessed was by Christians, mostly by Catholics and I remember one friend in particular who called people faggots and queers a lot who happened to be a church organist. I don’t ascribe any of that to religion; it is just that nearly everyone I knew in my home town was a Christian. All the gays were Christians too, at least nominally.
Yeah I don’t deny your experience, it is different from mine but every place is a little different. What is ironic for me is that the kids who I grew up with and later came out as gay and I still am friends with today, were the MOST active in the Church, much more active than the bullies and thugs. One is now priest some have left the Church and some are still very active in the Church.
Wow, you just lobbed that ole slow pitch right over the plate, but I’m not even going to take a swing at it.
Wow! How did I miss this entire post and all the comments? Arggh.
It’s probably too late to add anything substantive now, but I will say this: a lot of anti-gay rhetoric has come from people who claim to speak for Christianity. (And Islam, obviously.) And the trend among most educated people today is to require religious believers to show some non-supernatural proof for their beliefs IF they expect others to follow those beliefs in setting public policies. Combine those two factors, and it’s no surprise that some believers like to think of themselves as being persecuted…
So I suppose the persecuted believers among this post’s commenters have several options: either produce some actual proof that their deity a) exists and b) takes a special interest in sex, for example, or else accept with Abrahamic resignation that their religion is meant to be a laughingstock to the world. Since you plan in terms of eternity, I’m sure you’ll have the last laugh. But for now, do stop whining that you’re being persecuted — because you’re not.
still waiting for jdm to engage with the point made most recently in my 4:22 comment.
why, it’s almost enough to make you wonder if anyone should take him seriously.
khl:
“It’s been a long time since most Christians had to fear being thrown to the lions, and I don’t remember anyone ever being taunted on the playground for being Christian.”
Your exaggeration misses the point.
Christianity is singled out as the one religion not allowed to spoken of, or celebrated in public schools, for example. No problem if you want to have an after-school Ramadan club, but try wishing someone “merry Christmas”.
Persecution is what persecution does. True, there are no lions. Just selective bigotry.
Apparent there are some on this blog who are so desperate for attention that they take to bashing others as a way to get attention.
I remember kids like when I was growing up.
Sad.
*kids like that*
hermit thrush: I apologize. I shouldn’t make indirect references like that.
I have nothing to say about 4:22 comment.
But that doesn’t mean I should “respond in like manner” to comments like yours.
If you have a question, please ask it. Please don’t make indirect references to JDM, like this one, “why, it’s almost enough to make you wonder if anyone should take him seriously.”
there’s already a question in my 4:22 comment. please answer it.
i couldn’t care less about drawing attention to myself. it’s about drawing it to you.
oh really? an “after-school Ramadan club”? if there is differential treatment between Christian groups and other religious groups, then that’s definitely wrong and we should all stand up against it. but jdm’s track record does not inspire confidence that this is actually true, and it certainly doesn’t inspire confidence that he has any good examples to cite. (and i don’t mean general “after-school Ramadan club” platitudes, i mean actual examples in real life that he can link to.) however i’d love to be proven wrong by him!
my own experience is totally the opposite of what he’s asserting. it wasn’t that long ago that i was in high school. and guess what? lots of celebration of christmas! my 7th grade bio teacher wrote on the board that we should remember the christ in christmas. in chorus we sang loads of religious songs — not to promote any one religion, but because they were good-to-great works of art. the vast majority of these songs happened to be christian. one year we did the messiah. when i was younger i got taunted a lot by my christian classmates for not believing in god.
about wishing people “merry christmas” — to the extent that there’s a problem with it, it’s that it can come off as assuming that the person you’re wishing it to is christian. not everyone is, and it’s not nice to assume! (and if you don’t know what happens when you assume, then try googling it.) the advantage of “happy holidays” is that it’s considerate, respectful, and inclusive.