The Weekly Buzz Kill: Homophobia – the ignored American epidemic
Columns, Multimedia, Opinion Sunday, December 6th, 2009
I am about to say something that will shock and appall, especially those who read my column regularly. I have to confess, I do not have much of a problem with conservatives.
Surprising, I know.
However, I do have a rather enormous issue with bigots. I was reminded of this Dec. 2, when a woman was found stuffing copies of the Arbiter with white-supremacist flyers. These flyers spewed a hateful and poorly written statement regarding African-Americans following a list of categories of people who were at risk for HIV/AIDS. The categories included African-Americans, bisexuals and drug users.
These flyers certainly stirred up buzz around the Arbiter office. However, what was deemed to be most offensive was the racist message. No one other than me felt the need to point out the homophobia included in the message. This brings me, in perhaps the most round-about way possible, to my first point. Homophobia is an ever-present and often ignored epidemic in our society. Whether it’s on television, in our legislation, or in the English language itself, someone’s always taking shots at the gay community.
Well I’m sick of the oppressive attitudes directed toward homosexuals.
According to the modern lexicon, when something is stupid or unfair, it’s “gay.” When someone doesn’t fit the standard of manliness, they’re called a “fag.” In entertainment, gay men aren’t people, they’re caricatures; the only aspect of their personality the viewer sees is limp-wristed, care-free flamboyance. Lesbians are shown as either nymphomaniacs or asexual, leather-clad trolls. If this is what American voters believe about homosexuals, it’s no wonder our laws are biased against them.
Here’s my second point: there shouldn’t even BE a “gay rights” debate. There is no good reason to bar homosexual couples from the same rights, privileges and responsibilities that heterosexual couple receive. Some people argue that to allow gay marriage would “change the definition of marriage.”
Yes, this is true. So what?
There is no way gay people can “threaten the sanctity of marriage,” especially not when marriage isn’t exactly sacred in our society anyway. If marriage was sacred, we wouldn’t have the divorce rate that we do in our country. We wouldn’t have senators and governors sleeping around either.
Moreover, marriage is administered by the state and therefore has no business being non-secular. Churches can refuse to perform marriage ceremonies if they wish, but government officials shouldn’t have the right to refuse a marriage license to any couple. Contrary to what the homophobic right wants to believe, America is not a theocracy. The American government isn’t supposed to legislate morality, and even if it could, there is nothing immoral about homosexuality.
I’ll argue by the average evangelical’s rules — the Bible. Anti-gay activists often cite Leviticus’s list of abominations as reason to keep gay couples oppressed. However, this list includes many, many things. If you enjoy bacon, seafood or produce grown using crop-rotation, then you have committed an abomination. If you have ever worn a shirt made with mixed fabric, sport a tattoo or have ever once masturbated, then you have committed an abomination.
Another rationalization for homophobic behavior is the story of Sodom. This story, like many others (such as the story of Jesus and the woman at the well), has been misinterpreted and has nothing to do with homosexuality. However, it has everything to do with pride, greed and unkindness. Oh, and gang-rape, I can’t forget about that. I’m pretty sure most gay people are against gang-rape.
The Bible never once condemns homosexuality. In fact, there isn’t even a word for homosexuality in Hebrew or Greek. There are two reasons the Bible spoke against same-sex relations. The first is that it doesn’t produce babies. The second reason is this: other religions were okay with it. The ancient Jews wanted to set themselves apart from other religions by outlawing some things permitted or used in their rituals. If you want to follow the Bible literally, go stone Mark Sanford for adultery and forbid all contraception, then stone anyone who gets pregnant. I see a problem there.
Here’s my main issue with the way the legal system treats gay people: they seem to forget that gay people count as people. “Gay bashing” was only legally considered a hate crime as of last month. In many states, the “gay panic” defense for murder still holds up in court. Last week New York State Senate killed a marriage equality bill by a wide margin. America has a long way to go before achieving equality.
The way I see it, giving gay people equal rights and protection under the law only threatens one thing. That’s the self-assumed superiority and deeply entrenched bigotry of the Christian right. Tell me I’m wrong, I dare you.
Where do you stand on the gay marriage debate?
- Gays should be allowed the same rights as straight couples. (67%, 114 Votes)
- Civil unions, but no marriages. (17%, 29 Votes)
- No gay marriage at all! (12%, 20 Votes)
- I'm indifferent. (4%, 6 Votes)
Total Voters: 169
Short URL: http://arbiteronline.com/?p=35659
Posted by Josh Gamble
on Dec 6 2009. Filed under Columns, Multimedia, Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I wonder if they don't allow it because the government doesn't believe that the gay couple actually have feelings and true love. There is a gay couple in my friend's group and they are more in love than any straight couple I know. If anybody should have a right to get married, I think they should be able to get married. It makes me angry that some people meet and get married just cause they can and live a miserable life together.
Great article Josh!!!
this simultaneously deeply disturbs me and makes me laugh out loud:
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/10/16/cherrypicki...
Excellent article!
I, personally, don't care what the Bible forbids. I'm not religious. I do understand the point of using it in the article, though.
I do care what our law-books say, I am an American. That's why it offends me that not all of the people in this country can pursue their own happiness. It hurts no one. There is no logical, non-religious argument for continuing to discriminate against our own citizens.
Civil unions are fine but if the law defines marriage then gay couples could sue a church that refuses to marry them. This is why religous groups oppose gay marriage because the government will then be telling them what they can and cant believe. Government cant tell a group what they have to believe in.
I see your point. I agree with you that the government shouldn't tell religious groups what to believe. However, marriage is a state matter. A religious ceremony is only for the spiritual benefit of those being married. I believe that if a pastor is against performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, that is his right. However, it is also the right of the couple to be afforded the same legal rights and responsibilities as any other couple.
That's a scare tactic. What we're dealing with with making gay marriage legal is being able to get that all-important marriage certificate from the courthouse that will give a couple legal recognition. Churches deal in ceremonies- that you can get anywhere. The Mormon church can refuse to marry non-members in its temples- churches who don't agree with gay marriage won't have to marry gay couples.
That argument is just conservative church's attempt to play the victim to the gays who want to take over our Christian (conservative!) country- and an attempt to mask bigotry.
Trevor, with all due respect yours is a ridiculous statement. This issue has nothing to do with religion. Allowing gay marriage would NOT allow gay couples to sue a church who refuses to marry them. Churches can and do decide who may marry within their confines all the time. I'm not Catholic – it's not likely I can get married in the Catholic church, even if I wanted to. Similarly, no one but a Mormon may get married in the Mormon temple.
Don't worry, the unitarian universalists have us covered.
i had this same discussion with a friend of mine, whose commitment ceremony i attended a couple years ago. i argued why fight for defining the laws of marriage when civil unions give us the rights we're fighting for. she explained to me that they are the same thing, only different in language.
churches do not grant marriage licenses.
More specifically, the Old Testament forbids contraception, including "pulling out," for the Israelites. The holiness code in Leviticus doesn't apply to Christians because God said in Acts 10 "Do not call unclean what I have made clean."
It's not that I disagree; it's that you're applying different standards of interpretation to the two positions. On the one hand, you say that "the Bible doesn't mention homosexuality, so it's permissible," explaining the various verses traditionally taken to condemn homosexuality as a condemnation of various ethnic or religious practices (ritual temple sex, for example) or hospitality (in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah). On the other hand, your condemnation of contraception relies much fewer passages than the already-few passages condemning homosexuality, and you take a single act (coitus interruptus) to include all contraceptive passages. (Other than the passage about Onan, I'm not really familiar with any other passages that would condemn any contraceptive acts or practices.)
I understand what you're doing. You're trying to apply the argument against homosexuality to contraception to show how specious it is. But, in the same paragraph you state that "the Bible never once condemns homosexuality" while at the same time saying that "If you want to follow the Bible literally…forbid all contraception." This suggests that a literal interpretation of the Bible condemns all contraception, but at the same time a literal reading doesn't condemn homosexuality.
It's great rhetoric, but it's poor logic. It's better to say that a literal interpretation of the Bible that would condemn homosexuality would also forbid contraception. (I still disagree, because the case against contraception is much more tenuous and not nearly as well-attested as that against homosexuality.)
Great article, Josh! I love it! Ohh… and look at those people daring to tell you you're wrong!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/interrac...
The justice of the peace in this article refused to marry an interracial couple. You all probably think this is wrong, just as I do, yet you are okay with denying marriage to two people of the same sex who love each other? Some day you will look just as stupid as this justice of the peace.
no you dont understand, it will open the gate for litigation which would force for example Mormons to have to let gays be married in their temples. Gay couples should receive all the same rights in relation to the law of the land, leave churches and religion out of it. Dont even open the door that would allow some hot shot lawyer to bring down freedom of religion as we know it.
How would it open the door to litigation which would force the mormons to open their temples? There is a pretty rigid set of rules to be able to be married in the temples and there aren't people who are non-mormon asking to get in (at least not that I'm aware of), and as far as I know there are very few if any lawsuits that are currently looking to overturn the LDS church's privacy. I am very much for freedom of religion, but not as a means of oppressing people. Marriage is not a religious institution.
Agreed Lindsey, but the government should not be involved in promoting a specific group of people or religion. If as is happening now state government's continue to legalize gay marriage and the voters shoot it down it is government trying to force something over the heads of the people. A social issue as divisive as this should be decided by the people, not the government.
Part of the government's duty is to protect the minorty from oppression by the majority. That's why the framers of the constitution set up a republic, not a democracy.
Depends on what you mean by oppression. LBGT's have the same legal rights as all of us in pay, work, housing, etc. except gay marriage Josh. If you deem not being allowed to use the word "marriage"in their habitation with their spouses then I guess it is oppression. To me I do not find that oppresive. In find the discriminatory acts against blacks in the 60's oppressive but not this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03mo...
This article is about the costs that a couple who are life partners would have to pay because they couldn't legally get married. It's all very detailed, and very interesting. Anyways, because gay people can't get married, they are almost always financially worse off than a married couple.
LGBT people aren't recognized as a protected class under the Idaho Human Rights Act, either. Which means that some employers can fire someone or people can be denied housing just because they are LGBT.
Should white people have voted on the end of segregation and whether or not black people should get the vote, too? Civil rights for minority groups shouldn't be up for a majority vote, it's inherently biased. And outlawing gay marriage *is* promoting religious "sensitivities" by the government.
I agree with what you have said. This is a great article and I hope that many people read it, and not just read it but let it really sink in. There is too much hatred in this world especially against homosexuals. I appreciate you bringing up the different aspects of the subject as well.
This in a nutshell is why the generational gap on gay marriage will never be understood. To my grandparents what the author calls "homophobia" they would call immoral. Sorry, Josh but you don;t understand their problems with gay marriage, because it goes beyond the bible. I personally have no problem with gay marriage as do most of our generation but those that oppose gay marriage or civil unions are not homophobes but rather people with different opinions. Lest we also forget, LBGT's can be just as intolerant as the rest of us. Consider Prop-8 and its failure in California, after it failed the gay community and liberals attacked several Mormons and burned down a church. My point here is not say all LBGT's are intolerant but that they can be as intolerant as we are. It seems to me this author keeps picking on what conservatives believe, whether he likes them or not. The problem is he does not understand people's aguments against gay marriage so he should not try.
Unfortunately, no, I do not understand the older generation's argument against gay marriage. Please don't take me to be sarcastic when I say that I would very much like to understand. The reason I "pick on what conservatives believe" is that I disagree and am excercising my right to say so. As are you, and I honestly thank you for it.
So please, explain to me why you believe the older generations to be against gay marriage. I enjoy having discussion.
I know and I do not fully either. Part of it neither you nor I can fully understand as we live in a different generation and the social context has changed. You have to understand the social values of older generations were far stricter for better and for worse. Tradition and marriage had far stronger social context and meaning than it does today. It was unfathomable at a time when religion was dominant in American politics that gay marriage could be allowed. Just fyi but our current president doesn't even believe in gay marriage.____But I digress. You in this article has essentially lumped all opposition to gay marriage into the religious category. That is just no so. Social conservatives and some Catholics oppose it on those grounds but their is a swath of America that opposes it for other reasons. Libertarians like me do not oppose it but do not want government mandating what is socially acceptable or not (special historical circumstances excluded). Other Amercians who are ambivalent on the issue simply may not be comfortable yet with gay marriage. That is why I believe if gay marriage is to be allowed that it must be put to a vote by the people, not what government deems equality and oppression.
Sorry intro was a little unclear. I meant to say that I do not completely understand why they oppose it but understand some of their opposition.
To build on my last point on the previous post many Americans are simply not quite ready for gay marriage. Consider the recent examples. In 07 and 08 Prop 8 was overturned. In 2009 in Maine a law to legalize gay marriage was overturned on the ballot. Now consider this, in Washington state a law was passed that would award all marriage benefits to a LBGT couple and call it a civil union. Most Americans are not opposed to gay couples receiving the same benefits and enjoyments as married couples but using the word marriage. Marriage still has a strong social context in our society. If the people work hatd to change that context and get gay marriage passed on the ballot I am all for it.
Fair enough. While there are those who aren't against gay marriage for religious reasons, the extreme vocal ones in the anti-gay marriage debate are the religious right, which is why I mention them specifically. I'm glad to see a refreshingly reasonable stance on the matter. You're right, it seem America isn't ready for it. I just wish it were and hope one day we will be.
I believe that the verse in Romans speaks more about Romans than homosexuals. Paul is speaking out against the carnal nature of Rome, and I think that his mention of same sex relations is condemning their sexual apetites, not homosexuality specifically.
I could be wrong, such is the nature of interpreting the Bible.
I'm glad that you brought up Levitcus. It's true that most Christians don't live by Leviticus, but in conversation it is most often brought up as an argument against homosexuality.
It's fine to disagree. I'm not asking you to change your beliefs or condone homosexuality. All I really want is for the LGBT to have the same rights as everyone else.
"It's fine to disagree."
I think you mean "it's fine to disagree, as long it's my opinion that matters."
I don't get that "agree to disagree" opinion in cases like this where it's not the opinions that are being discussed, but the policy. Are you saying that it's fine for his opinion on this matter to be reflected in public policy? If not, then you're marginalizing his opinion with that sentiment–his opinion is fine and good, as long as he's powerless to act on it.
As much fun as it is to argue theological points, I have to wonder why the Bible has become the battleground of the Gay Rights Movement. It is taking the debate into religious territory, when it really shouldn't be there. To legislate state or national law on the basis of religion is in violation of the spirit of the First Amendment of the Constitution. While it is perfectly acceptable for a church to have and practice its own beliefs, it is wholly unethical for a religious group to attempt to interfere with the practices of state. The reverse is true as well.
I have yet to see any arguement to deny Gay marriage rights that was not based entirely on religious or spiritual beliefs, which should be invalid in the purely secular realms of state and national law. If anyone has, I'd love to hear it.
THANK YOU!
I've been waiting a long time for someone to finally come to this realization. Every time the gay marriage debate comes up it becomes entrenched in religious doctrine which has no place in a secular government.
I too, have yet to hear any argument against gay marriage that wasn't personally or religiously biased in some way. I would challenge anyone who is against the legal recognition of homosexual relationships to state their opinion without resorting to prejudice, which is what you are doing when you no longer judge homosexuals as individuals.
Give me one fact why homosexuals should not be allowed to get married!
I've made this request many times and have yet to be given one.
I wonder that as well, Vine. And what is the big deal as far as marriage? How many of them are santaified in a church only to end in divorce usually because of infidelity. What is wrong with just living together in a loving relationship? What is marriage for anyway? To make sex legal? I am gay and have a partner. No desire to get marrired.. What is the point? What good does marriage do anyway? Cost the courts money when it ends in divorce. IF you are committed to each other who needs a piece of paper deemed by the state to say that you are?
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by ArbiterGamble: Why? Because I hold the notion that gay people count as people. Radical, I know. http://bit.ly/8aLOwN...
Bad example Alicia. I have heard that argument before and it does not fly. I believe tht government intervention was necessary in the Civil Rights Movement because their was active discrimination. African Americans were denied access to basic education and the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. LBGT's today are not.
LBGT's do not even come close to the Civil Right's movement. LBGT's can go to school, cannot be discriminated against on the job and have access to all the basic services as the rest of us do, African Americans did not. Segregation is not the same thing as gays be allowed to marry, sorry. If you equate not being allowed to use the word "marriage to legally describe their habitation with others is equal to the civil rights movement and discrimination against blacks then I cannot convince you either way of the folly of your comparison.
Thanks. I would just add a correction though. The extreme vocal ones in the gay marriage debate are on both sides. The more vocal ones on the anti-gay side our on the religious right but there are also vocal and extremist groups on the side for gay marriage. Lest we forget what happened after Prop 8 passed last year. Singking one group out I don't see serving a purpose.
There are certain legal rights, especially in regards to medical emergencies, child custody and one's will after death than can only be afforded to married couples. That's why some want to compromise with civil unions.
Members of the gay community sure can be discriminated against on the job. Remember when Idaho lawmakers refused to hold a hearing this year that would have prevented someone from being fired for being gay, or being perceived to be gay? I've known people who've been fired because of their sexual orientation.
Just because discrimination has become more sophisticated doesn't mean it's not the same concept. There are plenty of gay people killed each year for being gay, and there's plenty of homophobia around. Just because they're not being blocked out of colleges doesn't mean it's not happening.
The issue of gay marriage is just the easiest one to identify, and it does mean that the LGBT community isn't afforded the same legal rights as the rest of the population. I never said segregation and gay marriage are the same issue, I'm just saying that I'm sure plenty of people had your mentality when the issues of women's voting and desegregation came up- that the public just wasn't ready for it yet- and I'm sure glad we agitated enough to move past them. This is an equality issue, plain and simple.
Then go to it and change it through the ballot box. The equality issue you speak of is not one of the magnititude that the government should step into. And since you rbought it up white people are discriminated against everyday by affirmitive action. LBGT's are not the only people today suffering from discrimination. Perhaps you should look this story up, in Broward County, FL a 16 year old lesbain shot her 15 year old classmate who refused to have a relationship with her. Don't play the gay people are being killed every year for being gay, blacks are killed everyday for being black by rival hispanic gangs and so on.
If we are going to go all out and claim that what gays suffer today is discrimination then I will go farther and say white and asians suffer discrimination by schools through affirmitive action.
Sexual-orientation bias
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/incidents.html
Of the single-bias incidents, 1,617 offenses were committed based on sexual-orientation bias. Of these offenses:
* 58.6 percent were the result of anti-male homosexual bias.
* 25.7 percent were motivated by anti-homosexual bias.
* 12.0 percent were prompted by anti-female homosexual bias.
* 2.0 percent were the result of anti-heterosexual bias.
* 1.7 percent were motivated by anti-bisexual bias.
Oh look, LGB people are totally killing way more straight people than the other way around! You were rig- Oh wait, no, I had it backwards, sorry 'bout that, in fact LGB(and T, though the FBI statistics don't cover them yet) people are disproportionately killed for their sexual orientation or gender. Reflecting a clear anti LGBT bias.
So your point is that LBGT's suffer some discrimination. I will buy that but produce some statistics that show me they endure more then white males in regard to education or affirmitve action or gang shooting. Everyday whites and African Americans are being shot by rivals just for being white or black. I do not see LBGT's living under a blanket of oppression and discrimination. Sorry.
I'm sorry, but that's a complete red herring; it's like saying that there's no such thing as racism because sexism exists. The presence of discrimination along one area doesn't preclude the presence of discrimination along another area.
If we are looking to measure the amount of discrimination based upon sexual orientation, then the correct thing to look at is (surprise, surprise!) sexual orientation. Don't compare LGB people to white males*, compare LGB people to heterosexual people, where, as the statistics show, there is significant discrimination.
*For that matter, what of white, nonstraight males?
No it is not a red herring. My point is to make the comparison that discrimination exists everywhere and LBGT's are not special in that regatrd. What makes them more warranted to get their discrimination dealt with as opposed to white males?
Or African Americans, or women or asians? I am sorry but you cannot legilsate morals and values which both political parties are trying to do. We all have biases and are discriminated against in some way, again LBGT's are not special in that way. BTW you do know new hate crimes legislation passed that makes punishment even harsher for discriminating against sexual orientatioj? How much farther you want to go?
To build on this point I think that you and I have different standards of discrimination. I think mine is more broad. I consider AA to be discrimination just as not hiring a LBGT to be discrimination. The problem I have is what makes it more warranted that LBGT's get theres dealt with while AA and quotas just keep going on. Is it okay to discriminate against another group while not the other because that is what I am seeing be done here?
Are you seriously saying that AA is on the same level of harassment, abuse, and murder?
Also, anti-discrimination laws already protect against discrimination based on race–any race. If you don't think it's okay to discriminate against one group and not others, why don't you support expanding said laws to protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identfication?
Current laws exist today to protect on the grounds of sexual orientation.
As for your first paragrah you completely blew past my point so I will blow past it.
"Current laws exist today to protect on the grounds of sexual orientation."
Not in Idaho.
As for marriage, since the government defines legal benefits for it, is the one who gives out marriage licenses, etc., writing the definition of marriage is the government's job. The problem is that people have taken this issue and turned it into a moral crusade, claiming that marriage is strictly a religious concept.
Sure, the government shouldn't be trying to set morality, but that doesn't mean it can't make laws regarding what some consider a "moral issue". I can't just claim taxation is a moral issue (no matter how deeply I feel it is), so the government isn't allowed to tax me, becaues that would be the government setting moral standards.
Or that marriage is between a guy and a guy,a girl and a girl. This is the point I am trying to get across here (among others). This attitude that LBGT's suffer more then everybody else is not born out simply by facts that say they suffer more discrimination. How many reports of discrimination go unreported on other issues and reasons.
Regardless on your point of government should be allowed to ste what marriage is, no it shouldn't. I am sorry but government defininf legally what you get from marriage and what marriage is are two separate things. In an issue as charged as gay marriage the government needs to step aside and let the people decide whether to call it marriage or not. Legally they can have all the same rights as couples but government dictating what is defined as marriage beyond legal terms is a big no-no.
Made some bad typoes, sorry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexu...
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/incidents.html
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.htm...
Around 4% to 10% of americans identify as gay, bisexual, or lesbian, to keep things simple let's say 10%
Around 80% of americans are white.
In 2008 51.4% of 9,160 hate crime offenses were racially motivated.
17.3% of these were perpetrated against white people.
Giving us a grand total of 692 crimes targeting white people.
Similarly 17.7% of these 9,160 crimes were motivated by sexuality bias, 98% of which targeted non-straight people.
Giving us 1,589 crimes targeting non-straight people.
When we consider that there are 8 times as many white people as LGB people (many of whom are white, thus making them recieve the oh so terrible discrimination against white people you're concerned about *as well*) then we come up with the fact that one's at least 18 times as likely to be the target as a hatecrime if they're a gbl person as opposed to just a white person.
So yes, I do think LGBT people face more discrimination than white people.
Your using one set of stats. How many hate crimes go unreported? Neither you not I can know, I will take these stats with a grain of salt.
The word there is farther not the f word. Either I made a very bad typo or the website moderator screwed up.
Okay I didn't make a typo. It is reading the word as a cuss word when it is not.
It's reading a synonym for flatulence in the word, so it censors it. It happened in an earlier entry with the word "circumstances" (although in this case, it was a different embedded word).
Stupid filter!
There is homophobia…yes. However…I don't think it's to the degree as it WAS. Look at Adam Lamburt, and ELLEN for god sake…Most Americans like these people…Lady Gaga is bisexual…If there is an extreme agenda to literally HATE (and there is a difference between simply diagreeing with gay marriage and actually hating gays…) if there is, and there may certainly be, they are a pretty small majority. The rest of Americans (according to the recent vote on Prop
simply just disagree…that doesn't mean they hate gays…The ones who do are just retarded.
Josh’s article only shows me the wealth of ignorance that comes from the position that attacks people of faith with such vitriol. It is not balanced, nor fair.
He complains that people use the term “gay” to describe something stupid or absurd. It was the “Gay” community that used their propaganda to append the term to homosexuality. They wanted a “nice” name instead of the derogatory names that were being used. Looking at the flagrant and sickening displays of many within the “Gay” community, I fully understand how someone would see a correlation between weird and stupid thing being “gay.” They brought it on themselves, so stop whining!
what bothers you the most?
the drag queens, the hotpants?
its the hotpants isn't it?
or is it because when two guys are holding hands you know that they're gay?
you can blame us for cats though, that's pretty gay.
Josh,
I just wanted to take a moment to say thank you. It isn't often that an article like this is written in favor of gay rights, and as an openly gay woman in this conservative region, it reinforces my faith in people and their ability to be open-minded and accepting. I can't begin to recount the amount of verbal abuse and otherwise that I and many of my peers have been subjected to simply because of sexual orientation, and it was truly a relief to read this and many of the positive comments left by other readers. It only shows that as a new generation comes into adulthood and begins taking active roles in society, the matter of gay rights is beginning to be treated fairly.
I remember during the whole prop 8 brouhaha when the gay community from all over the country targeted the mormons even though people of all ethnic backgrounds whether religious or not voted for prop 8 in California. I remember the cries of bigotry, the accusations of YES on 8 ads promoting "lies", the infamous "missionary home invasion" commercial, attempst to dig dirt on donors before the election, threats, vandalism, harassment, terrorist acts, hacking into church affiliated websites, blacklists, boycotts, forced resignation of prop 8 donors, and lack of politicians condoning these criminal acts.
I also noticed recently how same sex marriage was voted down recently in liberal havens such as Vermont and New York. Yet no one to scapegoat. How sad?
It wasn't too long ago that homosexuals were perfectly fine just living an "alternative lifestyle", now, there appears a to a demand to be considered mainstream. Ok , but stay way from schools.
Is there an actual demand among the gay community to be married or is this simply a demand for acceptance of homosexual behavior among the general public?
What % of homosexuals within the gay community are actually planning to get married if gay marriage were allowed?
What rights and benefits are homosexual couples not afforded that straight couples are?
Is homosexuality a choice or are people "born that way"? Is the science "settled"?
Is there a homosexual push in our school system? How about the distant and recent issues surrounding Barack Obama's Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings? Fistgate? Maps for teenagers to adult gay bars, etc…? NAMBLA? Leave the kids alone. Step away from the kids. This is all part of a ploy to ensure the deterioration of the family unit, nothing more, nothing less. Homosexuality is a choice. Keep away from the schools.
Passing Prop. 8 didn't remove any of the rights that were already granted to same-sex couples under domestic partnership laws in California. It is not bigotry to dispute the use of the word "marriage" to describe gay unions.
Note how the following strategy of "Direct Emotional Modeling" was applied to supporters of Prop 8:
"The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd….When he sees someone like himself being disapproved of and disliked by ordinary Joes, Direct Emotional Modeling ensures that he will feel just what they feel—and transfer it to himself. This wrinkle effectively elicits shame and doubt…our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. In short, Jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame into the previously unalloyed, self- righteous pleasure. The approach can be quite useful and effective—if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends."
"Is there a homosexual push in our school system? How about the distant and recent issues surrounding Barack Obama's Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings? Fistgate? Maps for teenagers to adult gay bars, etc…? NAMBLA? Leave the kids alone. Step away from the kids. This is all part of a ploy to ensure the deterioration of the family unit, nothing more, nothing less. Homosexuality is a choice. Keep away from the schools."
Dammit, you're onto us. I was afraid this would happen. Well, I suppose that means I have nothing to do but reveal the master plan, since you've figured out most of it anyways.
After we get people to accept that nonstraight people are people also, we'll head straight for the schools. If we can get all the teachers and administrators to be gay or bi, then from there it's a very small step to brainwashing all the children that come into our hands. By telling them stuff like "it's not okay to bully someone because they are gay", we'll convince the children to join the homosexual lifestyle.
After this, we'll work on getting the children to betray their parents, apple pie, the Statue of Liberty, and America. It'll be like in Nineteen Eighty-Four, where children are raised to spy on their parents and report them for thoughtcrime. We'll get the children to leave their parents, cause divorce, and then enter a lifetime of sodomy.
You see, the souls of children are precious. If we don't consume those souls, we can't live. All that stuff about merely wanting equality? That's just a facade to hide our real goal of devouring the souls of children and casting them into hell. Oh, and the ACLU is involved somehow also.
Pretty good job of summing it up except you haven't mentioned anything concerning the recommended reading list or the content and themes found in those books list that GLSEN that “furthers our mission to ensure safe schools for all students.”
Neither have mentioned the GLSEN Conferences that promoted tips to 14yr olds on:
"fisting"
"pissing on your partner",
passing out Gay Bar guides to teens.
“Spit or swallow?… Is it rude?”
Not cool.
There are over 1001 rights a married couple receives when they say "I do'".
The reason there was backlash for the LDS after prop 8 was because they spend so much (tax free) money, time and manpower to fight it.
Also, what kind of mental and emotional "modeling" has society cast on gay "people" through the years. Get real. And if your worried so much about "the kids", please keep all the straight men away from them, because that is by far the majority of child abusers.
Check your facts before spewing all your psycho-babble mambo jumbo thats supposed to make you look like you know what your talking about, When really your just uninformed and bigotted. Who, by the way, is afraid to share his name!
"The reason I "pick on what conservatives believe" is that I disagree and am excercising my right to say so. As are you, and I honestly thank you for it."
The reason people voted yes on prop 8 and continue to vote down same sex marriage is that they disagree with the definition of marriage and exercised their right to say so. It has nothing to do with bigotry and hatred.
Exercising your right to free speech has nothing to do with violating the rights of other people.
You can try to justify your position any way you feel like, but in the end you're just a bigot. This is because GAY MARRIAGE DOESN'T EFFECT YOU IN THE LEAST. You just hate gays and don't want to see them get married. You may use religious beliefs to try to legitimize your bigotry, but your still trying to impose YOUR limited and ignorant beliefs on people. Hey if you think this is gonna send me to hell, so be it. Doesn't Christianity teach "judge not yest ye be judged"?
So how about you just back off and let me have the rights I deserve. I'm not gonna hurt you, I'm not gonna sue your church, I'm not gonna affect you at all! Live and let live.
Passing Prop. 8 didn't remove any of the rights that were already granted to same-sex couples under domestic partnership laws in California. It is not bigotry to dispute the use of the word "marriage" to describe gay unions. I notice there were no scapegoats in Vermont or New York to target. How sad?
It was gays that used threats, vandalism, harassment, terrorist acts, hacking into church affiliated websites, blacklists, boycotts, forced resignation of prop 8 donors, and the support of politicians that condone these criminal acts, it was gays that tried to legitimize their agenda through hate and bigotry. And it is gays that are trying to impose THEIR limited and ignorant beliefs on not only the genearl popultion, but in schools as well.
So how about talking all the gay organizations into stepping away from the kids, stop glorifying homosexuality to youngsters. I'm obviously not worried about anything you can do to hurt me, or my marriage. I do care about the definition of marriage and I care about the kids, something that NAMBLA and GLSEN are obviously not interested in. Talk about live and let live and not hurting anyone else! Hello? Man-Boy Love Association? Hello? Kevin Jennings gives two big fists up to them and created the GLSEN.
"I'm not gonna hurt you, I'm not gonna sue your church, I'm not gonna affect you at all! Live and let live."
Actions speak louder than words and Ive seen some all sorts of criminal activity aimed towards religion from your gay friends. So while I'm sure I can take your word, I obviously cant take the collective gay word.
You are a big boy, you make your own choices, tell the gay agenda to leave the kids alone. There is no credibility in your movement because of criminal and pedophile activities and organizations that run rampant and are glorified within your community.
All the shame that you attempt to load upon those who appose your agenda with your cries of bigotry and hatred only backfire in the end when your agenda has been exposed and your methods of accomplishing your agenda are criminal.
I like your quote on "judging others". That's why I'm not offend by the practice of homosexuality by consenting adults or civil unions. I'm sure you Can you find some scripture that also deals with such themes as the sanctity and definition of marriage, the sin of homosexual activity, instructing children in the home on matters of sex rather than leaving it to others, let alone the "safe school czar"(Kevin Jennings) with his "safe reading list" and special conferences that teach 14 yr olds water sports, rimming, fisting, give out maps to gay bars, etc.
Spare me the "live and let live" and cries of "bigotry." When the gay agenda can act like adults, promote gay sex to adults rather than kids, and can debate the issue without resorting to heinous criminal activity specifically targeting one group maybe people would listen to you. But that's not the aim of the gay agenda.
I must disagree. While Prop 8 did not affect domestic partnerships, it did overturn the California supreme court's ruling in the case of In re Marriage Cases which overturned 2000's Proposition 22 (also known as the California Defense of Marriage act). A day after Proposition 8 passed, the state stopped issuing marriage licenses. This was a clear case of a pre-existing right (the right to get marriage licenses within the state of California) being revoked by the state.
Furthermore, the legality of gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with education or any other part of the public sphere. A gay couple's choice to marry is a matter only relevant to them and those they choose to share it with.
While I do not agree with SSC on the merits of his arguments I have to agree that in the case of Prop-8 no legal rights were taken away from LBGT's. They lost the right to be issued ,arriage rights but as civil unions could cohabitate and were entitled to all the legal benfits and rights as married couples. Now you can claim I am a bigot for not simply allowing gays to marry except I have no problem with gay marriage, I have a problem with the process that some advocate to have this happen. In short, government should not have a hand in legalizing marriage. Having government dictate this moral and social issue will only divide America further. If the voters of a said state legalize it then all the more power to them and their quest for equality but government should not be involved. State governments across the country have already addressed the question of equality by allowing them as civil unions to get all the legal benefits of married couples and the fed has passed laws that will make discriminationon sexual orientation grounds illegal. But the people of this nation should have a say on what "marriage" should be and include, not the government.
In specific regards to Prop-8 let us also not forget that gay marriage had already been banned once by the voters and the SCOC overturned the voters intentions. So that brings up the question, is it fair to overturn what a majority want for the minority? California, in regards to gay marriage, did and the voters came back and spoke again. In my opinion the greater harm was the voters of California, Prop-8 only reaffirmed what voters wanted and did not take any legal rights away from LBGT's.
I will get back to my original point and beliefs on the issue. I do not oppose gay marriage on moral or religious issues, I do not oppose gay marriage. If gays wants to get married they should be able to provided the people vote on allowing gay marriage. Government has already set the basic framework for gay marriage to be legalized by setting anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation and planning to get rid of Don't ask, don't tell (I support this) but the government should not be involved in setting moral stands and behaviors unless the situation warrants. I believe here it does not here, I believe in the Civil Rights era it did to African-Americans because they were denied even basic rights, LBGT's are not. So that said I only have one other problem with the LBGT community and both political parties as well. I do not like it when either conservatives or liberals use government as a tool to either force acceptance of gar marriage or to try to oppose it. Government should be neutral in the debate and let individual states decide the issue on ballot measures such as Prop-8.
Moreover I especially hate it when a particular group of people, white, asian, LBGT uses the discrimination card. My pt with the Affirmitive Action and white males was not say say AA is on par with murder (that is just dumb) but to simply point out that discrimination exists everywhere among all groups. Government should be in the business of banning some and accepting others or vice-versa. The role of government is to ensure people have the right to what is enumerated in the Constitution, that is partly done with anti-discrimination laws. The government arbitrarily without the consent of the people rewriting what is defined as marriage does not fit that definition.
Thank you for writing this article Josh.
I was appauled when these fliers starting circulating around campus. One thing I found even more disturbing was how the local media treated these fliers. The odvious main message in these fliers were racist, ignorant comments about black people. I certaintly feel for the black student population, I imagine these fliers must be incredibly hurtful.
Just be sure not to lump all who oppose gay marriage into the digusting hateful crowd that would circulate these flyers around campus.
I don't equal all gay marriage opponents to people like that, but in all honesty, I see no legitimate reason why anyone would want to deny me the right to marry the person I love regardless of their gender.
Some people may oppose it on religious grounds, but your personal religion doesn't give you the right to impose your will on my life. Besides, why all the concern about gay marriage? The same part of the Bible that condemns homosexuality also condemns shellfish, yet I see no huge movement by the Christian right to ban shrimp…So there seems to be a disproportional amount of attention being given to combat gays exercising their right to pursue happiness. The way I see it, using religious arguments is just an attempt to legitimize underlying prejudice.
Fair enough. I don't oppose gay marriage on religion, I don't oppose it at all. But understand, if gay marriage is legalized then it is you, the minority imposing your wants and desires over the majority who so far have not shown they want to legalize gay marriage. That is my problem. You are entitled to all the rights and happiness of everybody else but not at the expense of the majority of citizens in this country who do not believe in gay marriage.
How is it imposing on other people? It doesn't effect heterosexuals at all. Really on a day to day level there will be is NO noticible difference. The only real difference is that a few gay couples can say their married instead of boyfriends or girlfriends. That's all And since the vast majority of those people oppose it on religious grounds, its just not fair that they have the right to police everyone else's morality.
And just because the majority opposes gay marriage doesn't make them right. If the majority of people in the United States thought that black people should be murdered, does that make it justified to do so? Was slavery justified because most people were in favor of it?
Who protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority?
Those comparisons are of vastly different proportions and situations. As we have seen that many people here oppose it on religious grounds how do you know it will not affect them that much? Can you name a multitude of legal rights you are denied for being gay? Are you not allowed to work, etc?
I have never said that those who oppose gay marriage are right, nor have I said that those who support it are anymore right. Going back to my previous point, what rights are you being denied by the majority other then being able to get "married." The majority unfortunately (right or wrong) has to have the edge on divisive social issues. Opinions and social meanings like "marriage" change over time. But the majority to me is not imposing anything on you. They are not enslaving you, they are not preventing you from going to school or getting an education or living with a partner of the same sex. All the majority is denying you is the social meaning of the word "marriage." I do not see that as tyranny of th majority over the minority.
So in other words, I should stop causing trouble and just be satisfied with what I have? Sorry but that's just plain not good enough. I can argue back and forth about this, but that is futile.
So lets just agree to disagree
Look, I am not trying to tell you that you cannot get married or not. I take a neutral stance on the issue. What I want is the people of this country, people like you to facilitate the change and not turn to government. You are entitled to all the rights and happiness as married couples and you have every right to work as hard as you want to achieve it.
My pt is this, I don't oppose gay marriage. If the government were to make it legal across the country I would accept it and move on. What I would like to see is the people make this happen, as in the Civil Rights Movement and to gradually truly end slavery and discrimination. I think you and I disagree on the process but we do not disagree on the belief you have the right to marry. The people, including you should make this happen, not the government.
I am just describing the preferred method for legalzing gay marriage. In social issues as divisive as this, when the people decide what happens then their is less violence, discrimination and hatred. If states and the federal government decide gay marriage be legalized then so be it, I just think the preferred method to making this happen that would cause the fewest problems is having the people legalize it, not courts or the government.
You and I disagree on the process, we do not disagree on whether gay marriage should be legalized or not.
BTW on civil rights the majority supported the Civil Rights movement, the main opposition was in the South, the minority in the debate. The same with slavery, the majority supported ending it, the minority did not. In most cases the majority has forced change, not the minority just as will eventually happen with gay marriage.
[...] The Weekly Buzz Kill: Homophobia, the ignored American epidemic [...]
Hi!!! arbiteronline.com is one of the best informational websites of its kind. I take advantage of reading it every day. Keep it that way.
Thank You 4 A Great Article! Some New Videos Released On Our Whateverporn Website!
Apparently Josh Gamble knows nothing of the Bible and what it says about gay marriage. It condemns gay marriage multiple times. According to Genesis 19, one of the reasons Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed was because of homosexuality. That was a big reason as a matter of fact. Get the facts straight when pulling religion into something Mr. Gamble. I disagree with gay marriage 100%. Sure, they have their rights and their feelings but in a country that was founded on biblical rights and religious freedom, well, it shouldn't be allowed because the Bible condemns it and says it's wrong. The only reason people wouldn't agree with me is because through the years America has fallen away from the idea that it was founded on biblical principles. They live for themselves and not for Christ. Sooo, do not try and tell me, or anyone else, that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality and the only reason the Jews said it was wrong was because they wanted to be different. That is false! Any Biblical scholar, believer or non-believer in Christ, knows that the Bible condemned homosexuality. That's that. I sure wish I would have found this article earlier because many people have been mislead by this "Josh Gamble: So called Homophobic expert".
"Sure, they have their rights and their feelings but in a country that was founded on biblical rights and religious freedom, well, it shouldn't be allowed because the Bible condemns it and says it's wrong."
Wow, talk about a contradiction! You really have no idea what religious freedom is, do ya? It means the right to practice whatever religion you see fit, but it also means that one religion can't impose it's own rules on other groups. How would you feel if laws were enacted that made you subject to the rules of Islam? Or Hinduism? or Buddhism? Same basic thing, you're trying to impose your OWN will onto the lives of other people.
So how about you cut the crap about religious freedom, because you odviously would love nothing more than to have this country be a Christian theocracy and have everyone subject to the rules of the Bible, instead of secular laws.
BTW, the Bible also condemned shellfish, clothing made from more than 1 material, and states that a suitable punishment for a disobedient son is to STONE HIM TO DEATH. When was the last time you followed those rules?
inb4 "the old testament is obsolete"
Some Guy- Just so you know, homosexuality is condemned before and after the Mosiac law in the Bible. And yes, most of our basic laws here in the States are derived from Judeo-Christian laws . Most people on both ends of the political spectrum like to use the bible to reinforce their politics. Secularists have their own form of religion and dogmas with their own priest as well who would like to impose their will on everyone else. I'll just say this, true freedom doesn't mean liberty from moral restraint.
"Secularists have their own form of religion and dogmas with their own priest as well who would like to impose their will on everyone else" I'm curious what exactly your talking about. All secularists want is to do what we want within reason. We have no desire to limit your practice of your own religion, but we're sure as hell not going to let you run everyone else down with your own personal belief.
"I'll just say this, true freedom doesn't mean liberty from moral restraint. "
And I'll counter with, you don't need religion to know the difference between right and wrong. That comes from parenting, and having a conscious, not some possibly imaginary man in the sky shaking his finger at your from 2,000 years ago.
"All secularists want is to do what we want within reason."
The "with in reason" part is where it get's gray. Who says what is and what is not within reason?
" you don't need religion to know the difference between right and wrong. That comes from parenting, and having a conscious, not some possibly imaginary man in the sky shaking his finger at your from 2,000 years ago."
I would agree with you that it takes good parenting to teach the difference between right and wrong. Without even bringing religion into the debate you make the case for not allowing homosexual marriage. The family is already under assault. The divorce rates are high. Men leave the house, Abortions are through the roof. If parents aren't there to teach the children then they are left to the state. You may not need religion to teach you what's right and wrong , but right and wrong wasn't derived from the state. And like I said, when Government starts telling you what is right and what is wrong instead of people checking themselves, everyone loses.
"The family is already under assault. The divorce rates are high. Men leave the house, Abortions are through the roof."
And how is that related to gay marriage? Gay people aren't making these straight marriages breakup, they're not making fathers and mothers leave abandon their families (that's right women do it too, not just men like you seem to suggest). We're talking about bringing loving couples together, and you seem to think that means tearing them apart. Do you somehow believe that legalizing gay marriage ENCOURAGES people to be gay? Like people are just going to DECIDE to be gay? Nonsense.
How is two people who are in love wanting to get married an assault on the family? You seem to see gay couples as some sort of evil, harmful institution. Why? Look at all the children in the foster care system. Did gay people put them there? NO. Bad straight parents do.
Now tell me whats better…one of those kids in foster care finding a loving home with a gay couple, or letting them waste away in the foster care system because straight couples want their own babies? The way I see it, gay couples who want to adopt are providing a great service to society. And a stable gay family is loads better than a broken straight family.
And don't come back with all the BS about kids raised by gay couples end up messed because you know that has no base in empirical fact.
"And don't come back with all the BS about kids raised by gay couples end up messed because you know that has no base in empirical fact."
I won't put words in your mouth if you wont. But speaking of empirical facts, being born gay is not one.
My point is marriage is for creating families, just because society is screwing it up doesn't mean we redefine marriage. That's like saying because politicians are messing up our republic we should scrap the Constitution or change it.
"Do you somehow believe that legalizing gay marriage ENCOURAGES people to be gay?"
No but the gay agenda which is behind the movement encourages inundating homosexual behavior and acceptance to kids. See current School Safety Czar. That's why its not about gay marriage. Its about forcing others to accept homosexual behavior.
"How is two people who are in love wanting to get married an assault on the family? You seem to see gay couples as some sort of evil, harmful institution. Why? Look at all the children in the foster care system. Did gay people put them there? NO. Bad straight parents do."
Like I said, the fact that society is being encouraged by secular humanists to redefine the family and many people are listening by doing whatever they want ( with in reason) families and societies decline.
"Now tell me whats better…one of those kids in foster care finding a loving home with a gay couple, or letting them waste away in the foster care system because straight couples want their own babies?"
What's better is people being responsible and loyal to their families and putting them first and not listening to secular humanists encouraging people to do what ever they want ( "within reason") without thinking of consequences for their selfish actions. Govt would rather spend billions to rehabilitate folks and create a Govt. dependent society then advocate making good choices to strengthen families.
I have no doubt that gay couples can give love to kids, some, but not all. How many gays even want to be married? Adopt kids? 20 years ago gays were totally anti marriage, why the sudden change? It has nothing to do with marriage. Gays want to demand that their lifestyle is accepted by everyone. That's the whole motive, its not about marriage or finding homes for foster kids. Never has been.
Yes, for the same reason adultery and fornication are.
adultery and fornication, alright. lets suppose for a moment that human beings are not in fact separate from the animal kingdom, then adultery and fornication are biological imperatives meant to propagate a species. but i digress.
adultery and fornication are acts committed by individuals and are not exclusive to homosexuals. So maybe we start judging people as individuals rather than condemning them as immoral just because we think what they do between the sheets is icky.
by the way, I have been in a committed long term relationship with someone of the same sex for almost 5 years now. I know of another gay couple that has been together for 20, and have a large and loving family.
Shame on you! You are pitiful J.F., afraid even to use your name. You take the bible completely out of context and then go on to say you have gay friends! God forbid your gay friends have anymore enemies. You obviously don't know what the word "friend" is. Could you be anymore prejudiced?!? Thank God you had finals or who knows how long your rant would have been.
you don't have to condone homosexuality any more than I have to condone christianity.