« Hurray! Hurray! Many Happy Returns | Main | eight and counting... »

say it loud, i'm a homesexualist and proud!

Via Jay at The Daily Rant:

Fox News threatens to sue ex-'gay' minister: Bill O'Reilly engaged in heated debate with guest he called 'religious fanatic'

The only things you need to know about this article:

Stephen Bennet, the "religious fanatic" who calls O'Reilly a bully, runs a ministry, the point of which is to teach people that NO ONE is born 'gay', in most all cases having EVERYTHING to do with one's childhood, and COMPLETE change is COMPLETELY possible!

That Stephen Bennet is a spokesperson for Concerned Women of America, a homophobic group if there ever was one; one that uses quotes around the word gay as if it weren't a real word.

That Bennet's legal defense comes by way of American Family Association, a fringe religious group whose recent actions include telling their members to boycott Marvel Comics because they are making a comic with a gay character.

Fox News is threatening to sue a prominent evangelical minister in the ex-homosexual movement who engaged in a volatile exchange over biblical morality on the top-rated television program "The O'Reilly Factor" in September.

Stephen Bennett, who says he left his homosexual lifestyle nearly 11 years ago, has distributed a 60-minute audio tape program called the "The O'Reilly Shocker," in which he responds to host Bill O'Reilly's characterization of people who take the Bible literally as "religious fanatics."

Fox claims Bennett's use of clips from the interview is a copyright infringement.

Just another case of people thinking their morals should be everyone else's morals.

[Counsel Michael] DePrimo, who vowed to "vigorously defend" Bennett if Fox proceeds with a lawsuit, noted that it would not be legal "if somebody puts effort into a particular product and another person tries to appropriate it and sell it as his own."

That is not the case in this situation, he insists, charging that Fox simply "does not like the fact that Bill O'Reilly has been exposed as a homosexualist."

So, what exactly is a homesexualist? And I highly doubt that O'Reilly is afraid of being "exposed" as pro-gay rights, when he has publicly stated that he is.

So what is the real issue? It's that people like Bennet and those groups he has affiliated himself with think of themselves as morally superior and seek to bring you into their fold.

Bennett said that his tape includes Rev. John F. Harvey, a Roman Catholic priest who asserts that O'Reilly is not speaking for the Catholic Church, which views homosexuality as "intrinsically evil."

Harvey, who runs Courage, a spiritual support group in Manhattan for homosexuals, says O'Reilly is abusing his public celebrity platform and promoting a heresy against the Catholic Church. The priest calls O'Reilly "confused" and "filled with pride putting himself above the Catholic Church."

Yes, the good old Catholic church. Say, isn't molesting young boys a heresy? Maybe you should look into that problem, Rev. Harvey, before you concern yourself with what O'Reilly is talking about.

If O'Reilly is a homesexualist, well then I suppose I am, too.

Comments

Like I said over at The Rant, I'm not convinced he isn't gay - the picture of Bennett speaks volumes. Liberace anyone?

(and, yes, I'm stereotyping - and yes, I have gay friends, and blah de blah)

I didn't know O'Reilly supported equal rights for gays and lesbians. Does anyone have a link to this? I guess I don't have to hate him as much anymore.

Well, one of the qualifications for being 'ex-gay' is that you have to have, at one time, identified as gay or at least bisexual. It's been a proven trend amoung 'ex-gay' ministries that the members "regress" often and are, nine times out of ten, individuals who had serious problems in other arenas of their lives while they were identifying as gay.

So, yes, I'd say it's probably a pretty fair bet that the individual in case is gay. The APA has flatly stated that 'ex-gay' therapies are not endorsed by them, that they're shams and more often than not extremely harmful to the people that they're perpetrated against, etc. The first main proponent of 'ex-gay' therapy, Paul Cameron, has been thrown out of every psychological and sociological society he's ever been a member of due to his shoddy science, distortion of facts, etc., and yet, somehow, the people who follow in his footsteps still get airtime.

It just goes to show you how far bigotry will take you, I guess. Pity, that.

I always thought Bill O'Reilly was a bit of a maroon, now he proves it. Why is it that homosexuality has become such a sacred cow? O'Reilly's diatribe ranks up there with all the smoke and fury (signifying nothing) that arose over Dr Joseph Nicolosi and the reparative therapy discussion. As I recall, that one also quickly resulted in a series of ad hominem attacks. Why should your decisions about whom to sleep with give you moral (amoral?) superiority? Gimme a break.

I know a couple that used to be in an Ex-Gay ministry up here in the win Cities. The two of them are no longer "Ex-Gay". They're quite thoroughly out and happy about it.

Keith, who is Quite Fruity himself

James wrote:

"I didn't know O'Reilly supported equal rights for gays and lesbians. Does anyone have a link to this? I guess I don't have to hate him as much anymore."

He's not exactly pro-gay rights in all cases. He thinks a two-parent male/female "traditional" family is by far the best way to raise kids...but thinks the situation in Florida where kids can't be adopted out of the foster care system by gay would-be parents is horrible. He's interviewed Rosie O'Donnell over this issue a few times (they grew up near each other in similiar neighborhoods on Long Island, and she recently lost the bid to adopt her foster daughter because of Florida' no-gay-adoptions law), and while he basically told her to her face that he's not exactly a fan of gay folks (he'd rather they keep quiet about their "lifestyle" [damn, I hate that word]), he thinks it's very wrong to deny a kid in foster care a family just because the parents are same-sex.

Religious-moralist groups subsequently had a conniption fit over him stating this on-air, and O'Reilly eventually interviewed them too, where he (O'Reilly) defended gay adoptions. The religious guy he had on kept trying to tell O'Reilly that God said that homosexuality was wrong. Your God says that, O'Reilly shot back. The religious crusader guy then shot back that since O'Reilly was a Catholic, it was his God too, which pissed off O'Reilly even more--he really doesn't like being lectured :-) --and he called the guy a religious wacko, among other things. Woo!

So. O'Reilly pro-gay rights? Well, sorta. I'd call him more anti-stupidity, including anti- people who try to use the Bible and appeals to false morality to pressure him to change his views. And he kinda likes being a thorn in a lot of peoples' sides; it makes it harder for critics to pigeonhole him, and therefore easier for him to uphold his populist beholden-to-no-one image that helps him win viewers.

But isn't it nice to know that being pro-gay rights (even if maybe not for all the right reasons) can actually be seen as a canny move for a media figure to make? The times, they are a-changin'...

okay, here's my .02. I want to know why I would care to change what I like or dislike just because someone says something about my being bisexual? If your reasoning is religious........I really don't care about it. If you reason is moral........well I know a LOT of immoral hetrosexual people, and a LOT of moral gay and bisexual people. I find it funny that society keeps trying to make a big deal out of this, time and time again. So lets all go out and change the religious right! We all know they are wrong, so lets go change their views...........ready? BEGIN!

"Why is it that homosexuality has become such a sacred cow?"

Um, because government-sponsored and -legislated oppression of minorities, including sexual minorities, is wrong? Because all men are created equal and should have equal rights?

I dunno, just a thought.

A-girl,
That's why I would hope that this country would return to its roots as a republic, as opposed to a democracy. True democracy rapidly degrades to mob rule. The Founding Fathers knew it and feared it, rightly. Unfortunately, that is where we appear to be headed. The majority view, throughout written history (with few notable exceptions), has been that homosexuality is pretty much a deviant behaviour. Now we're being forced not only accept it, but to approve of it. Wrong answer, hero.

Since when does

Kid, no one is forcing you to accept it or approve of it. That would constitute mind control, and last I looked we still hadn't acheived that yet in our government.

As for majority rules, which century would you like live in, Kid? The one where people hunted down witches and burned them at the stake? Is that what you want to see? A "majority rules" society is the kind that eventually collapses into mob rule, not the other way around.

As for the "poor oppressed pedophiles," really bad analogy there, kid. Pedophilia is illegal. Forced sexual acts between an adult and a child is no way comparable to two loving adults who are in a relationship.

Try again, kid.

Kid: You start off all right, with an accurate description of republic-vs-democracy, but where you slip up is this:

The proper principle here is majority rule, with minority rights protected

This is an excellent and historcially grounded way to approach the problem, since now we are dealing with the question:

What consitutes a proper level of protection of minority rights?

And from that framework you can continue to fight the gay agenda, if you so choose, since some of it involves special favors from government, which can certainly be opposed ethically.

You take a wrong turn here:

The majority view, throughout written history (with few notable exceptions), has been that homosexuality is pretty much a deviant behaviour.

This does not prove weather homosexuality is right or wrong. Our ancestors had some pretty odd (by our standards) views, I'm sure you'd agree.

You need more than an apeal to authority to prove your case that we should consider homosexuality wrong.

Since when does

4% of the population can dictate certain terms. Not enslaving them would be an extreme example.

should we extend the same "tolerance" to the poor oppressed pedophiles?

The critical divergance here is that society considers humans under a certain age to be incapable of giving consent.

I will grant you, but only for the sake and duration of the next paragraph, that homosexuality is a perversion.

You still cannot say 'a perversion is a perversion is a perversion' here, because forcing your perversion on another is quite different than two consenting perverts.

Do you see where your comparison fails... even if homosexuality is a perversion?

On to michele's reply:

Kid, no one is forcing you to accept it or approve of it.

That's not quite true, Michele. Under a liberal-style "acceptance" scheme:

  • The schools will teach his children that homosexuality is OK.
  • Gay Marriage is official government approval of homosexuality.
  • Once gays are recognized as a minority, its quite likely that we'll see AA programs for them, and a large increase of equal-protection lawsuits.
  • Hollywood will, just as soon as they think they can do it without losing sales, start putting as many gay relationships into movies as they can.

So his complaint that other people's sexuality is being forced on him is entirely accurate. The gay rights movement is all about forcing public and government acceptance.

If the issue was 2 guys who want to bugger each other without being arrested, gay rights could have been won years ago.

But on the other hand, you could say that gays have 'straight' values forced on them.

Minority rule is at least as wrong, and probably more wrong, than majority rule. Neither by themselves is sufficient.

"If the issue was 2 guys who want to bugger each other without being arrested, gay rights could have been won years ago."

Nope. The Supreme Court case Bowers v. Harwicke was in 1987, which said that states have a right to regulate what consenting citizens do in their own bedrooms. This was 1987, and yet the right to have sodomy laws on the books was upheld, despite the fact that whatever one may think of homosexuality, having the government be able to literally dictate your sex life is an obviously appalling over-reach of governmental powers. But the court didn't see it that way, and concocted a legally-shaky way to keep the sodomy laws legal...because after all, they were just queers, for God's sake, and the state had an interest in regulating their behavior. 1987.

This year, 2003, the Supreme Court will be taking on a case that looks like it will overturn Bowers. In other words, they're probably about to strike down state sodomy laws as unconstiutional violations of citizens' privacy. Gay citizens' privacy, since the laws are usually not prosecuted against straight citizens, even though they're sometimes written that they could be. (Oral sex between anybody is still illegal in Massachussettes, for example. But I'd bet the last 9 out of 10 people to get charged for it were gay men.)

So, what changed so dramatically between 1987 and 2003? Less tolerance for governmental snooping? Hardly, given the recent passage of the Patriot Act. New legal thinking about the state's right to regulate behavior? Nope. Greater societal tolerance of gay people? Bingo.

The simple answer is that it isn't as acceptable to demonize that tiny 5% of the population any more, thanks to everything from pop culture to TV to the Internet to simply more people being out of the closet to their relatives and friends. These days, almost everybody knows someone who's openly gay. That was not true even as recently as 1987. It's harder to demonize what you know (or work with, or are related to, or whatever).

This is literally a case where greater acceptance by the general heterosexual public of us non-straights is going to help undo a seriously legally screwed-up legal precedent.

Think of it like the abolitionist movement, or the later Civil Rights movement It took the "humanizing" of slaves, though books like Uncle Tom's Cabin and speeches Frederick Douglass, as well as a growing social movement in the North calling for abolition, that paved the way for the eventual emancipation and granting of rights to black Americans. Or it took the horror of the 1963 Birmingham terrorist attack that killed those four little girls, for many whites to start to emphathise with black people, even if not with their cause. It was the changing of social attitudes and the humanizing of black people that pushed forward the changing of legal decisions, undoing the Jim Crow laws. So will it be with gay people and decisions like Bowers (and, eventually, marriage laws).

In other words, just saying that gays should rally for their legal rights only, as opposed to trying to become socially acceptable, is pretty much useless. The two go hand-in-hand. The path to changing unjust laws often lies directly through peoples' hearts.

I am fully aware that the sodomy laws are just changing now... My point is that if the gay rights movement were focusing on it, it would have happened years sooner. And even though its only leaving the books now, the laws have been virtually defunct for years already. When was the last time a gay man got arrested for anal sex? Hmm?

I submit to you that public intolerance of the government inside ANYONE's bedroom is the cause, NOT some lessening of the 'demonization' monster that you apparently believe stalks the land (probably hiding out at republican HQ).

When it was revealed that one of Blix's inspectors was a S&M fetishist, people made cracks about that being his qualification, but no one seriously suggested he be persecuted... or prosecuted... for his behavior.

And I guarantee you that more people think S&M is odd than think homosexuality is perverse. There are openly gay priests. How many openly S&M priests do you think there are, anyway?

So it is our tolerance and love of freedom, not the gays' kicking and screaming and demands, that bring an end to the sodomy laws.

It could be argued that their acting like the second coming of the Rainbow/PUSH coalition has set them back rather than enhanced their cause, as Americans brace for the impact of yet ANOTHER 'victim' group with its hand out for guaranteed jobs, schools, and ratios.

Kid: You start off all right, with an accurate description of republic-vs-democracy, but where you slip up is this:

The proper principle here is majority rule, with minority rights protected

Good catch, Ryan. The point I was trying to make is that as a nation we are devolving to the point that every viewpoint is equally valid. 'Tain't so. I can accept a differing viewpoint but still know that it is wrong. I've served in the armed forces for 24+ years to protect that right.

But on the other hand, you could say that gays have 'straight' values forced on them.
I don't buy it. No more so than car thieves or pedophiles or anyone else operating outside the accepted norms of society suffers for having someone else's values forced on them. Okay, stealing cars does not violate natural law, but there is a reason we enact(ed) legislation against aberrant behavior such as pedophila or sodomy -- it violates that natural law.

Bogus sheep research [how ironic] notwithstanding, and despite earlier rants relative to Dr Nicolosi and reparative therapy, I'm still looking for any evidence to tell me that we not talking about twisting the natural order of things.

You have a [somewhat questionable] right to sleep with whomever you choose, and yes, I will fight and die to protect that right, but having a right is not the same thing as being right.

So do you think we should legislate against homesexuality? Make it completely illegal?

You have a [somewhat questionable] right to sleep with whomever you choose, and yes, I will fight and die to protect that right, but having a right is not the same thing as being right.

Ah, that's it for me. When someone drags out an argument like that, it means they've stopped debating and started moralizing.

Ah, that's it for me. When someone drags out an argument like that, it means they've stopped debating and started moralizing.

Cha-ching. I knew we'd get around to that eventually. I've notcied that when one is accuesed of "moralizing" it generally implies that morals [or is that "absolute morals"?] are a bad thing.

Morals are not a bad thing. Insisting that anyone who does not live according to yourmorals is wrong..that's a bad thing.

So there is no such thing as "absolute morality"?

Who decides what this "absolute morality" is?

Do you want me to tell you? :)

See, there's the trouble. Not everyone believes in your God.

I'm still looking for any evidence to tell me that we not talking about twisting the natural order of things.

Actually, I've got it for you. From the American Psychological Association's website, specifically their document called "Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality":

Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.

In other words: it is not an abnormal brain function. This is the human brain acting as it is supposed to act. Thus, it is not "twisting the natural order of things." It is, for some people, the natural order of things.

Further, to address the "furor" over Dr. Nicolsi and his therapies, said furor is well-founded. Directly above that question are these two:

Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.

However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.

What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?

Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.

The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias.

A 1998 position statement on reparative therapy unanimously passed by the APA Board of Trustees reads:

"The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient."

"Many patients who have undergone 'reparative therapy' relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction."

"The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed."

"Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment, there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors."

If that's not enough evidence that the foremost authorities on human brain function in the United States today don't believe that homosexuality is "twisting the natural order of things," please let me know.

I've got plenty more where that came from.

</comments hijacking>

First off, I have to weigh in to say that while in the TV debate I agree with O'Reilly, I have to agree with the wingnut in the prospective lawsuit. Copyright law is not intended to be used to squelch what seems to be legitimate political speech (however bigoted and wrongheaded it may be). I have serious problems with corporations trying to step on political debate in this manner.

Now, on to the subject of the discussion in the comments.

King's Kid: You know /why/ the Founding Fathers feared mob rule? Because of the tyranny of the majority. IE, because of the 96% brutalizing the 4%. Because the Founding Fathers realized that that 4% have the right to dignity, to equal treatment, to equal access to services, to all the rights and protections the 96% enjoy.

The comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia is meaningless. Does the phrase "Consenting adults" mean anything to you? It's the standard we apply to heterosexual relationships. And it's the only standard the government should be applying. I don't want them legislating what positions I have sex in, or where/how I pleasure my partner. Nor to who I choose for my partner. The government has no business making a decision like "That girl's okay, but that one's not." I'm sure you don't want those legislations applying to you as well. Why the hell should you want them applying to homosexuals?

* The schools will teach his children that homosexuality is OK.

They'll teach his children that homosexuality is no basis for discrimination. That mistreating them is wrong, just as is mistreating anyone else.

* Gay Marriage is official government approval of homosexuality.

No... gay marriage is official government recognition that they have no business deciding who can and who cannot get married. Just as I don't want them picking my wife, I don't want them saying gays can't get married. It's ridiculous in either case.

* Once gays are recognized as a minority, its quite likely that we'll see AA programs for them, and a large increase of equal-protection lawsuits.

Translation: It will cost money to stop discriminating against homosexuals. Well, no shit. Doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

* Hollywood will, just as soon as they think they can do it without losing sales, start putting as many gay relationships into movies as they can.

When did Hollywood come into the picture, exactly?

Ryan makes a comparison between homosexuality and S&M. I'll point out that S&M fetishists are allowed to marry each other. Unless they're homosexuals. Seems like the analogy fails pretty badly.

But on the other hand, you could say that gays have 'straight' values forced on them.
I don't buy it. No more so than car thieves or pedophiles or anyone else operating outside the accepted norms of society suffers for having someone else's values forced on them. Okay, stealing cars does not violate natural law, but there is a reason we enact(ed) legislation against aberrant behavior such as pedophila or sodomy -- it violates that natural law.

Bogus sheep research [how ironic] notwithstanding, and despite earlier rants relative to Dr Nicolosi and reparative therapy, I'm still looking for any evidence to tell me that we not talking about twisting the natural order of things.

Just because it invalidates your point does not make it bogus. Normally one would provide evidence to refute it, if they wanted to be taken seriously.

And how's this: Homosexual behaviour can be identified in nearly all species. In fact, it is more prevalent amongst animals than it is amongst humans. Seems plenty natural to me. We are twisting the natural order. We're keeping people from doing what comes naturally to them.

Very well said A. Crusader. I'm gay and I can tell you it gets so exhausting having this discussion. Its so refreshing to see that some people get it. More often than not its the religious issue that the idiotarians fall back on. I can tell you this much, I recognized I was gay when I was 12 years old and I can say with ABSOLUTE FACT that it was never a decision I made. People that insist that homosexuality is a "lifestyle" or a "choice" are in serious need of some therapy. Gays in lesbians make no more of a conscious choice in who they are attracted to than heteros. I'm so tired of hearing the far right and the Falwell gang insist that we are after "special rights". If wanting to keep my job, avoiding being attacked b/c of who I sleep with, and having my relationships legally recognized is a special right, so be it. But the last time I checked, these are rights that every group enjoys. Oh yeah... except homosexuals and lesbians.

Let me get this straight: Homosexuals don't have any rights because they constitute less than 4% of the population -- yet homosexuality is spreading everywhere and threatening to turn us into another Sodom and Gomorrah, so it must be outlawed. Which is it?
Homosexuals may be

When was the last time a gay man got arrested for anal sex? Hmm?

Looks like the biggest, most recent, case was 1998. A little too recent for my comfort.

Oh, and King's Kid has a post about the morality issue (although it's lacking on substance regarding absolute vs relative morality). I decided to chime in in his comments - feel free to join in.

Sheesh, so many points!

1) Gays should be allowed to adopt, singles, too. But priority must be to married straights, not because gays are 'bad' but a child deserves first crack and a mom and dad. I'm assuming here that people DO accept that men and women are basically different???

2) Gay marriage... while it is NOT an endorsement of homosexuality, let's not pretend it could dramatically change the body of law governing 'marriage'. What possible argument could the government come up with for not allowing polygamy? That said, I'm all for some sort of domestic partnership statutes that would give gays a de facto set of laws to cover such things as inheritance, medical care, child guardianship.

3) Homosexuality is NOT a choice. James, I believe you that you knew you were gay at an early age. Sexuality is not an either/or thing...it is a continuim with 100% straight at one end and 100% gay at the other with the majority of people falling somewhere inbetween. It IS unfortunate that both the fundie straights and the fundie gays fight over the bi-sexuality of others in a political fit of number counting. People fall in love with other people...the gender of those envolved does NOT dictate political ideology!

4) Morality - absolute or relative? That in itself is a loaded question. There is no 'absolute' without context. To paraphrase WF Buckley... "we may be able to say absolutely that pushing grandma is a sin; however, there is a great deal of difference if we are pushing grandma out of the path of an onrushing bus or into the path of the bus."

Very well said A. Crusader. I'm gay and I can tell you it gets so exhausting having this discussion. Its so refreshing to see that some people get it.

As I am about to show A. Crusader's and especially James' posts were weak, full of holes, and purposfully missing the point. Of course, they gets a pass on their sloppy argument by the simple virtue of being on the "right" side. This "me good tolerant person, you bad bigot" thinking becomes quite obvious if you look at what James actually has to say:

To prove his case, James provides:
* A. Crusader "gets it"
* 3 sentences saying "gays are born this way" with the devasating proof of... HIS OWN OPINION.

To disprove his opponents, he says that:

  • idtiotarians fall back on religion (which is true, but he seems to assume that people who fall back on religion are automatically idiotarians, which would be a agrument-by-smear if true).
  • people who disagree with him are "in serious need of some therapy" (speaks for itself)
  • linking the "Gays want favors" to Falwell (tarring the argument by association to known idiotarian)
  • asserting that the "special favors" his opponents want to revoke consist of keeping his job, not being attacked, and having his relationships legally recognized. (Which is a strawman agrument, except for the gay marriage part. Who, exactly has been campaigning for the right to attack gays?)

If you can get your head beyond "Opposing gay lobby=bad", this might seem to a neutral observer an extremely weak argument.

Crusader is up next...

But before I do, a word about andy's link:

I have a few thoughts about this:

Unless I'm reading it wrong, the laws in question have been out of service for 15 years (unless more recent examples exist)... which proves my point.

And even then, it seems that the reporter had to dig deep to find ANY examples... and NONE where police went out to arrest a homosexual, simply because they were homosexual. The SS is not breaking down your door.

On the other hand, I would have to conclude that even these few examples are too much: Especially the one where the 2 gays have to register as sex offenders...

I knew, the moment that they passed those abusive sex-offender registration laws, that we were going to see totally indefensible overcreep...

I don't think anyone on this board would disagree that putting gays in the pedophile-and-rapist registration system is even remotely defensible. They deserve an immediate pardon.

Ryan, you neatly skipped over the wealth of information provided in my comment regarding the widely held professional opinion of the psychiatric profession that gays are, in fact, "born that way." That was very convenient of you, but not missed by the rest of us.

Additionally, Ryan, you are, in fact, reading it wrong. Fourth and fifth paragraphs:

Four states - Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas - have so-called same-sex sodomy laws, which the Supreme Court has agreed to review. These statutes impose criminal sanctions on certain types of sexual contact between gays or lesbians, primarily anal and oral sex, that are entirely legal for heterosexuals Another nine states - Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia - have sodomy laws that apply to all adults, gay or straight, but that tend to be enforced selectively against homosexuals.

Kinda hard to miss, really. The laws are still on the books.

1) Gays should be allowed to adopt, singles, too. But priority must be to married straights, not because gays are 'bad' but a child deserves first crack and a mom and dad. I'm assuming here that people DO accept that men and women are basically different???

Depends how you define different. And I'd say that priority must be to the best homes. I don't see any reason a heterosexual couple should be given priority over a homosexual one. Being heterosexual does not necessarily mean you're a good parent (and neither does being homosexual). I'd rather see adoptions going to good parents rather than people who happen to have a wider variety of genetalia.

2) Gay marriage... while it is NOT an endorsement of homosexuality, let's not pretend it could dramatically change the body of law governing 'marriage'. What possible argument could the government come up with for not allowing polygamy? That said, I'm all for some sort of domestic partnership statutes that would give gays a de facto set of laws to cover such things as inheritance, medical care, child guardianship.

I don't think the government could come up with a law for not allowing polygamy. Either in the polygyny or polyandry flavours. Or in combinations of multiple males and multiple females. Frankly, I don't think it's the government's job to state what is and isn't a marriage. It's for the people involved to do.

Marriage exists to say "We're a family. We should be considered as a group rather than a collection of individuals." It specifies that you need each other. That you have a right not to be separated (see the protections in the law about testifying about one's spouse, designed to avoid breaking up families). Again, it's not the place of the government to say who is and who is not a family.

For more on my thoughts about marriage: My post on the subject at my blog.

VAspider, you moronic ass, why don't you take the 2 seconds it would require to actually read what I said?

#1: I said Unless I'm reading it wrong, the laws in question have been out of service for 15 years

I said OUT OF SERVICE, not OFF THE BOOKS. I made a distinction, kindly respect it.

And even though its only leaving the books now, the laws have been virtually defunct for years already.

Does this look familiar? No? May I suggest that this is because you haven't bothered to read what I wrote.

May I further suggest that if you do not bother to read what I wrote, you have no business trying to debunk it, because it just makes you look a fool.

And I am fully aware that you presented "proof" elsewhere. I was pointing out what he himself provided... which was his opinion. He did not even reference what you said.

I thought I was quite clear in my post, but since Crusader spends most of his "argument" ignoring the thrust of my exchange with Asparagirl , I will restate it:

Question: Should gay rights include a right to force a "gay is good" theme into schools, government, law, and culture?

Note: I had great difficulty trying to boil down the correct question to be fair to both sides... I apologize for any inaccuracy in advance.

Asparagirl's Theory: The simple answer is that it isn't as acceptable to demonize that tiny 5% of the population any more. (And therefore, the "gay is good" broadcasting is essential to social justice)

My Theory: Public intolerance of the government inside ANYONE's bedroom is the cause. (And therefore, a Jihad against intolerance isn't necessary: sensible people already understand, and idiots won't be convinced.)

My "S&M versus gay rights" attempt at proof: If Asparagirl is correct, the "Gay is good" message should logically only help gays. But if my theory is correct, we should see an across-the-board hands-off-the-bedroom approach. Hence my pointing out that people who enjoy S&M aren't getting demonized like you might expect, and therefore lessened demonization of gays isn't logically the reason... we want the cops out of EVERYONE's bedroom.

Hopefully, this should clear up what I was trying to accomplish with the comparison.