They call themselves “Values Voters” and they’re meeting in Washington this week at a gig sponsored by the Family Research Council – which in actuality does little “research” and spends most of its money and time lobbying for what they perceive to be “family issues.”
No – you won’t find too many scholarly papers or books published by the FRC. What you will find is a lot of shocking ignorance, bigotry, and a stupidity so profound that one wonders how these people can live in the 21st century without their heads exploding.
These guys would have been right at home in Salem about 400 years ago. This is their take on homosexuality:
Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects. While the origins of same-sex attractions may be complex, there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn. We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools. Attempts to join two men or two women in “marriage” constitute a radical redefinition and falsification of the institution, and FRC supports state and federal constitutional amendments to prevent such redefinition by courts or legislatures. Sympathy must be extended to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions, and every effort should be made to assist such persons to overcome those attractions, as many already have.
There’s never a stake and a pile of wood around when you need one, huh guys.
I am no great defender of homosexual activists – or any other activists who seek special rights or privileges based on some idiosyncratic attribute. They can’t help being gay nor can many obese people help being fat or others help the fact that they’ve got red hair (I discriminate ruthlessly against people with red hair). A line must be drawn somewhere or soon, the only people not able to claim special rights are gorgeous, hunky, heterosexual white men under the age of 40. And don’t worry, they’ll find something they’ve been discriminated for too.
But at the same time, does anyone else feel that they’ve jumped into a time machine and travelled back about 100 years when reading how the FRC feels about gays? Well, maybe not a hundred but at least 30. The American Psychiatric Association decided back in the 1970’s that homosexuality was not a mental disorder or disease so where they get this “negative physical and psychological” stuff is not, I assure you, from any recognized authority on the subject.
But the FRC talks like gays are sick while needing our sympathy and help to get rid of “unwanted” (!!) sexual desires. I pity anybody with unwanted sexual desires. It’s sort of like the feeling I get when I see Catherine Zeta-Jones in Zorro. But the FRC isn’t talking about those kind of unwanted desires; they’re talking about sexual feelings for someone from the same sex generally.
So where do they get these cockamamie, stupid, bigoted notions? It ain’t from any “research” done by the Family Research Council. Or at least any published research. What they have are brochures, “booklets,” a lecture, and a couple of friend of the court briefs filed in cases involving sodomy laws.
I have taken some pains to describe these “values” because they are apparently shared by the vast majority of “Values Voters” who showed up at this shindig in DC this week. In addition to a lot of hokum like this, they are also fed a steady diet of political red meat by the likes of Sean Hannity:
Hannity made an offer to Barack Obama. Given Obama’s predilection for scolding America for not being charitable, Hannity offered to send Obama’s destitute half-brother in Kenya $1,000, if Team Obama can send Hannity his address. If Obama will appear on his show, he’ll make it $10,000.Afterwards, he returned to the media issue. Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s strategist, told him that the media has lost a tremendous amount of credibility in this electoral cycle. Rasmussen reports that 69% of the public believe that the media outlets have rigged their reporting to favor their candidate. In no manner is that more obvious in the way they have treated Sarah Palin. In six days, Hannity says, there were more questions about Bristol Palin than in 19 months about Obama’s association with William Ayers.
What any of that has to do with being a values voter I don’t know. But it sure revved up the troops, didn’t it?
Bill Bennett was also there. Now I happen to like Bill Bennett quite a bit and believe him to be a rational, intelligent man who speaks and writes with great clarity about the challenges of maintaining western civilization’s core values and protecting them from assault by some nihilists on the left.
But this is nonsense:
Bennett said that we have to tread carefully in our support of the Palins for the pregnancy of their teen daughter. We need to applaud the way that they handled this family crisis, Bennett says, but we have to remain focused on preventing teen sex and fight an epidemic that creates these pregnancies. We can do both, and we should.Obama represents a different set of values, and Bennett warns that these could prove dangerous to the American way of life. We shouldn’t question his patriotism, but we can certainly question his judgment. Fred Thompson summed it up best, Bennett says. “There are two questions we will never have to ask about John McCain: Who is this man, and can we trust him with the Presidency?”
Values are “dangerous?” Are Obama’s values (he is a nominal Christian, a family man, seems fairly honest for a politician, and cares about his community) going to attack us? Maybe they’ll jump us when we’re sitting in church minding our own business. Perhaps they’ll ambush us on our way home from the store.
Values are not dangerous. They may be different. But different isn’t dangerous unless one seeks to impose those values on people who are unwilling to accept them. Obama and the Democrats may still achieve power in November. But really now, are our core values going to change that much unless we let them?
The problem is that many of the things these attendees believe to be “value oriented” either have nothing to do with “values” and everything to do with politics or, even more prosaically, are absolutely none of their fricking business as far as what others might believe, or think, or seek to live. In other words, I would tell most of the “values voters” there to get stuffed and keep their nose out of my life. My values are my own and seeking to make political issues out of personal morality is the antithesis of liberty.
For instance, saying that life begins at conception is a belief based on faith. I respect that. But science doesn’t see it that way and the government cannot, should not base laws that govern people on the way humans interpret the will and thoughts of a supernatural deity. That simply isn’t rational. Who knows the mind of God? Not Sean Hannity I assure you. And my experience has been that even great intellects and good souls like Pope Benedict harbor doubts about how well they understand what goes on in the mind of the guy upstairs.
These are not evil people at the FRC conference. I believe them to be in thrall to a belief system that they find enormous comfort in as opposed to dealing rationally with the world at large. They are led, for the most part, by good hearted people who really want to do the right thing but end up not recognizing that their own myopia about the modern world is handcuffing their parishioners and preventing them from opening their minds to all the possibilities – other ways of thinking. Other means of discovery besides finding the correct verse in the bible.
There isn’t a god but if there was, it would seem to me that he would want us earthlings to use all of our faculties, all of our experience and learning, all the cumulative knowledge built up over thousands of years of human civilization in order to get the most out of life. The discovery of carbon dating has given the lie to the notion that the earth is only 6 thousand years old. In the parlance of Christians, god opened our minds and allowed us to gain the ability to go beyond Genesis and discover for ourselves some of the mysteries of the universe. We have exceeded the knowledge of the ancients because we have built upon their work and opened our minds to the fundamental truth that we are perfectly capable creatures whose curiosity and ability to ask questions supersedes any “truth” we can get from any religion on earth.
I’m sure I share some of the “values” that these Christians accept as their own. But I don’t think I have a corner on truth nor do I think it a good idea to use the government to impose my own concept of morals or values on someone else. This I will oppose from both the religious right and secular left. My values are my own. I would be pleased if everyone – right and left – just stayed the hell out of my life and let me live it the way I see fit.
2:35 am
Hear, hear!
If there was any one thing in particular that has soured me on the GOP, it is the pandering to the Moral Majority, so-called (well, that and related oddities, like Newt Gingrich lecturing us on the sacredness of marriage).
Thanks, Rick. This is why I read RWNH.
3:40 am
One is allowed to let homosexuals live the way they want, without pandering to or in fact enabling their lifestyle. I think it’s a good thing that attitudes have changed to allow them to live their lives in peace, but what’s wrong with allowing someone to voice opposition to that choice? After all, they voice their opposition to heterosexual beliefs every day. If we’re to allow an honest dialogue between the two groups, then both groups must be allowed to speak.
The anti-Christian hate (and the pro-anything-but-Christian pandering) running rampant in this country is a symptom of a deadly virus spreading around this country. If you don’t want the United States to exist as the country it was founded, then say so. Anything else is simply a lie.
4:38 am
For Gods sake,
the christian right is not to be feared. for some people it is their belief that guides them. they don’t want to take over your life, or change the way you think or act. they value and protect life period. that’s where they stand. they aren’t violent, mean, hateful or trying to change our whole system. everyone knows where they stand. i don’t get the abortion fear??? I haven’t heard anyone say they were going to take away our choice either way, i just have not heard that. this conversation has been going on for years and it has not changed. republicans have been in office several times. that said, when it comes down to everyday living who is going to affect our life? i don’t want to pay any more taxes. i don’t get the robin hood way of taxing the rich. 40% of the country do not pay taxes any way. personally i can’t imagine how it got so upside down. everyone knows lowering taxes is a good thing, it creates more jobs. we also have to start drilling for oil, and we need different kinds of energy for our national security and we need it soon. we will have Alaska at our finger tips. last, close the border! protect me militarily and that’s all the government i want in my life. sounds like a McCain ticket to me. i say that because i still don’t know anything at all about Obama. the media is too busy pounding Gov. Palin to tell us anything, it’s almost criminal what they are saying and doing. Why? for Obama? something is going on there and it’s getting dangerous. think people!
5:55 am
>>For instance, saying that life begins at conception is a belief based on faith< <
Oh c’mon! Anybody who’s ever bought a pack of rubbers knows when life begins. So does anyone whose girlfriend has ever been late.
6:31 am
The FRC should be commended for their attempts to thwort all efforts by the homos to push their sinful lifestyle on the general population. They should go further though and associate their beliefs with the correct dogma, the Holy Bible and Jesus Christ, who, in no uncertain terms, condems the homosexual lifestyle as an abomination. No one has ever been born with a homosexual gene. They and their cohorts, the believers in the theory of evolution go hand in hand. And, the theory of evolution has already been disproven. If you’d like to be educated and have the your sight restored let me know.
7:13 am
‘Science’ doesn’t say life begins at conception? Pray tell, when DOES ‘science’ say life begins?
7:25 am
“For instance, saying that life begins at conception is a belief based on faith. I respect that. But science doesn’t see it that way”
What
?!? You’re not at all accurate, and you are ignorant of the science and the status of the debate. At conception, there is life. No one disputes that. At conception, there is a living entity. The entity is separate and distinct from his or her mother, and has human DNA. No one disputes any of this. It is as scientifically certain as anything we know.
Is it really your position that a fertilized egg is not alive? This is a wholly ignorant position, and it should be a cause of embarrassment to accuse others of not basing their positions on science when you have so little knowledge yourself.
The debate today is not on whether a fertilized egg is “life.” Rather it centers on whether that living entity is a “person,” which is at best a matter of “faith” for both sides.
7:29 am
Obama…”seems fairly honest for a politician, and cares about his community”
Did you write this with a straight face? Obama ripped off his community, not only is his low-income housing project such a ghetto it must be torn down, the only thing he has to show for his $100 million neighborhood recreation center is a $100,000 gazebo.
I will accept you premise that he is a good family man since he seems to have avoided the severe scrutiny which his opponent’s VP choice has endure however I cannot accept your dishonest appraisal that he cares about his community.
Chicago is more dangerous than Baghdad, it is a gangland’s hellhole .
7:38 am
I’m sorry, but I still haven’t gotten past the statement, “saying that life begins at conception is a belief based on faith.”
So if life doesn’t begin at conception, then the fertilized egg is a static inert mass, I suppose. Then at some point it springs to life? So is it the Rick Moran position that life is based on spontaneous generation? Do your research. That was disproved a few centuries ago.
I’ve been reading you for 3-4 years. I’ve always known I disagreed with you on abortion, but I didn’t realize you based your position on medieval science.
8:41 am
Gee… then I guess you don’t need us to win the next election, and want us to stay home in November?
No?
Then I guess you just want to whine like a six-year-old about how superior your beliefs are to ours personally insult us for HAVING beliefs (bit of sour grapes there), and STILL use our voting clout to advance your own agenda… right?
Right?
9:21 am
God, guns and gays is all that keeps RepubliCONs in power.
For all the yahoos on here whining about when life begins… women aren’t officially pregnant until the fertilized “egg” implants itself in the uterus.
9:49 am
So you speak for some several million people, do you? Presumptuous, much? I was raised Assembly of God. There are indeed many within that particular movement who want to do just that.
And, please: “value and protect life period”. How many tens of thousands of unfortunate Iraqi civilians have died in the past few years? How many “developmentally disabled” convicts have been juiced? And note, these are real people, not undifferentiated embryos.
Life started ~4bln years ago. That’s when life began. When does a human person begin? Somewhere between 0 and 9 months, and probably closer to the latter than the former. I’ll reserve my respect for life to beings with a brain and nervous system, thank you very much.
I personally disagree with Rick quite a bit on other subjects, but whatever he says, at least the man’s unafraid to take a rational stance, which is more than I can say for many others, Left or Right.
10:29 am
the fundamental issue here is simply that the left has their kooks (code pink anyone?) and the right has their’s. but, and it is a big but, there are a helluva a lot more kooks on the right, thanks to the puritans. if mccain didn’t pander to them he would be SOL as would obama to the far left (as you have repeatedly stated). come on rick, if you don’t like it, turn the station…
as for life beginning at conception, yep, i am a biologist and professor, and if you read any simple textbook or biological paper on the subject, it is moot… it is not discussed because it has been decided well before my time, the only argument is that which cannot be argued, proven or dis-proven, when does the so called “soul” or persona begin, and with technology we are seeing that a child can live much longer before term than was ever thought imaginable…
10:59 am
Frank Rich put it perfectly
“.
The specifics have changed in our new century, but the vitriolic animus of right-wing populism preached by Pegler and McCarthy and revived by the 1990s culture wars remains the same. The game is always to pit the good, patriotic real Americans against those subversive, probably gay “cosmopolitan” urbanites (as the sometime cross-dresser Rudy Giuliani has it) who threaten to take away everything that small-town folk hold dear.
The racial component to this brand of politics was undisguised in St. Paul. Americans saw a virtually all-white audience yuk it up when Giuliani ridiculed Barack Obama’s “only in America” success as an affirmative-action fairy tale — and when he and Palin mocked Obama’s history as a community organizer in Chicago. Neither party has had so few black delegates (1.5 percent) in the 40 years since the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies started keeping a record.
But race is just one manifestation of the emotion that defined the Palin rollout. That dominant emotion is fear — an abject fear of change. Fear of a demographical revolution that will put whites in the American minority by 2042. Fear of the technological revolution and globalization that have gutted those small towns and factories Palin apotheosized.
And, last but hardly least, fear of illegal immigrants who do the low-paying jobs that Americans don’t want to do and of legal immigrants who do the high-paying jobs that poorly educated Americans are not qualified to do. No less revealing than Palin’s convention invocation of Pegler was the pointed omission of any mention of immigration, once the hottest Republican issue, by either her or McCain. Saying the word would have cued an eruption of immigrant-bashing ugliness, Pegler-style, before a national television audience. That wouldn’t play in the swing states of Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, where Obama already has a more than 2-to-1 lead among Hispanic voters. (Bush captured roughly 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004.) ”
11:19 am
Well done Rick. Brilliant piece.
If one were to extract all of this from the current Republican party, I would join up.
I’d love to see a third party that adopted no particular religion and refused a stance on certain issues. The party would look much like the current party with the tumor of the evangelical base surgically extracted… with a chainsaw.
12:16 pm
I have to disagree on the part about Obama’s values are not going to hurt us…he values our being the same as Europe – to go along to get along – more of a one world type situation. I don’t agree with that. He voted against legislation to save a child born alive during an abortion. I cant think of too many things more disgusting than that. His values lean towards socialism and mine do not. He has no regrets about working with and taking money from domestic terrorists. His poverty rabble rousing was a cover for profiteering. I do believe for me that his values are far from mine.
12:24 pm
“I’d love to see a third party that adopted no particular religion and refused a stance on certain issues. The party would look much like the current party with the tumor of the evangelical base surgically extracted… with a chainsaw.”
By all means! Then we can really become like the cesspool that is Europe. You make Marx proud!
12:36 pm
Mary W:
What a penchant for hyperbole you have there! “Cesspool,” “Europe,” and “Marx,” all in the same sentence, and not one factual claim to get in the way.
Chuck T:
Personally, I like the Libertarians, but they are far too disorganized right now for my druthers. A lot of what the fiscal conservatives say makes sense to me; I just don’t want the Republican party trying to shrink down government small enough to fit in my bedroom, as someone said recently.
12:40 pm
Thanks Mary. I happen to be a capitalist who enjoys free thought and the formulation of independent opinions. I know you’d take that away from me if you could but I won’t let you.
1:29 pm
Hello to Chuck, there is a party for you and it is called the Democrat Party. I am sure I will be called all sorts of names for this…but I have been a frequent visitor of this blog on an almost daily basis. Guess I just missed the part where Moran revealed his hatred for Christians. And don’t try to tell me “It’s not Christians I hate, just stupid people who believe for example in life begins at conception.” Your blog entry actually drips with anti-Christian bigotry. So be it. You can say it all you want to, but I will not read it again. Linda in Va.
I’m going to have to find a way to access my control panel. Until I do, I can’t hold you to your promise not to visit again because I can’t ban you.
And just for the record; my entire family are Christians. So unless you want to make the preposterous arguement that I hate my family, all you’re doing is blowing smoke out your ass.
ed.
1:38 pm
Even though most of my Irish Catholic red hair is now gray, I will resist being offending by Rick’s imbalanced discrimination. I do need Rick to disclose what view would he suggest Christians to have concerning gay love, gay rights and gay marriage. – All of civilization has chosen to cultivate, support and prefer the traditional family unit of a man joined in marriage to a woman, who together raise their children. If an adult prefers the company of other adults of the same sex, that’s his/her business, and he/she is free to share property and income by private contract to support that arrangement. Society’s preference to support the traditional family unit and traditional family dependents, to the exclusion of non-traditional ones, is a sound choice. – The “me too” pleas of non-traditional units for “equality” in the “right” to enjoy marriage are drama-filled, but do not justify confusing our long standing cues on husband and wife, mother and father. People need to know what the rules are, and for a small but vocal segment of people, we are substituting sound clarity for thorough confusion. We will definitely regret this experiment in heterosexual guilt.
3:05 pm
melanie said:
For all the yahoos on here whining about when life begins… women aren’t officially pregnant until the fertilized “egg” implants itself in the uterus.
Does that “Official” fertilized egg have the proper documentation proving it is “Official”? What government agency controls that? Official or not, implanted or not, the egg is fertilized, and if it is allowed to do what it is “designed” to do, then a child results.
Just call me another Yahoo.
3:05 pm
I disagree with some of your points and agree with others but you seem to be forgetting that every law our country has is the result of the majority expressing their values. You seem to be promoting a highly libertarian viewpoint without regard to the anarchy that would result. Every group of people needs rules and those rules are the results of people expressing their values. How else would a country or civilization function?
4:19 pm
This is an embarassing, disqualifying comment from you, Rick. There’s no way this is not a complete paranoid overreaction. I see nothing here from the FRC indicating burning of witches—-just your knee-jerk reaction because you disagree.
Re: “The American Psychiatric Association decided back in the 1970’s that homosexuality was not a mental disorder or disease”—you neglect to add that this was done after acute pressure from homosexual activist groups. Are you naive enough to think that what a group of eccentric MDs decide in one decade establishes truth and reality for all time, especially when it goes against the common wisdom of thousands of years of human history in every people group?
Your intolerance of Christian belief is just staggering. Who made YOU the sole arbiter of what people are supposed to believe as “contemporary reality”? What is the basis for your own confidence in what is right and wrong? Is it just decided by popularity contest?
So just what is YOUR value system? And why should anyone consider YOUR value system normative for them? If each person is the only one deciding what is right and wrong, then, in effect, there is no such thing as morality, and therefore no basis for your outrage.
I don’t see a lot of Christians out there doing anything other than praying with people, trying to support healthy family life, and helping the suffering. Why do you think Communist Chinese academics come over here to find out what Christianity is about? They’re coming here to find out what works, because they actually UNDERSTAND that it is part of the underlying philosophy that makes for healthy, productive family life, as well as a free, vigorous profitable market system.
Rick, if you yourself ever become a part of a hated minority group, who is it who you think will defend your right to life? It will be Christians, most likely. Check the world track record on which countries have the largest numbers of people trying to immigrate to them? Do you think it’s just a coincidence that people are not losing their lives trying to come to Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist nations, but rather to those that have a long history of Christian faith? You are the one who is sadly out of touch, and you are also out of touch with what is happening in the rest of the world.
All I can see in this paragraph from the FRC is that they are opposed to normalizing homosexuality. “opposed”, (I don’t see that that means denying them basic civil rights much less “burning at the stake!”)DUHH—that is what everyone thought before the gay activist onslaught, which has made people who are easily led insecure of their opinions. So, these people are not allowed to have their own point of view because you don’t share it? If this is libertarianism, you can keep it!!
The other thing I get is that they have compassion for the suffering that homosexuals have. Where’s the problem here? There is no question that rates of suicide, disease, alcoholism etc. are higher in the male homosexual community. Should one not have compassion for this? What is your problem?
More importantly, what is it that so frightens you about the FRC? Let’s be honest here.
4:33 pm
Mark30339:
On the contrary, I think Rick’s “discrimination” here is terribly “balanced”; he hasn’t said to string up any Christians, to kick out Christian politicians, to hold Christians to different standards than everyone else. You’re fine believing your Jewish folk stories, just don’t act like the rest of us are bound to lend them any credulity.
We’re all big boys and girls, and I think the use of reason to solve our problems is eminently fair—everyone has access to it, and if you choose not to exercise your intellectual powers of discrimination, so much the worse for you (and unfortunately, often for the rest of us, too).
Ideas are ideas are ideas. Some match the real world, some don’t, and so they will have greater or lesser practical value. Religion is a collection of ideas—some better, some worse—just as is the case with all religions. Why should we be inclined to support this or that kooky idea, just because your church happens to endorse it? it should be evaluated on its actual merits to individuals and society, just as any other meme.
How the hell would giving homosexuals right to marriage lead to “anarchy,” besides from folks such as yourselves who simply disagree ‘cause their holy book says to do so? There are so many children in the system who need families, and plenty of folks willing to adopt whose only ‘fault’ is that they’re attracted to members of the same sex. If you’re going to claim that this is somehow wrong, you’re really going to have to provide actual evidence, and not just the purported sayings of an ancient Judean sky-god.
4:45 pm
Er, I intended to say: “Christianity is a collection of ideas” in the third paragraph. But you get my drift.
6:25 pm
WOW! talk about opening a can of worms!
My only sister is “gay” “lesbian”
I love her. I dont know why she turned out
that way. She just is. And a butch type too.
I think ‘science’ will prove that a gene exists
to prove it. She also votes repub. most of the time,
and she loves Rush! Limbaugh and 2112!
6:33 pm
A few more points directed to you, Rick. To quote your article:
<>
So, are you telling us that Christians who take the Bible seriously are interfering in some way with your life? How so?
Government by definition imposes its values on everyone. What do you think laws are? Have you really thought through any of the implications of what you are espousing?
The public school system is a monopoly system, funded through government enforcement, with the ability to impose its agenda, whatever that may be, on the youth of the nation.
At the moment,a pro-homosexual agenda is being promoted by the state school system. Christian groups and parents have every right to object to this type of manipulation—after all, their tax dollars are supporting the schools too. There is no way you can have a values-neutral education or government.
I also don’t want the government imposing things, which is why I support school choice, school vouchers, etc., ie anything which allows parents to choose the value system they espouse.
I still don’t have a clue what you think is so threatening about Christian groups such as the FRC. Come on, what’s your worst fear?
6:49 pm
JDM Re: “So what she was born that way”—just for the sake of intellectual argument, let’s say that alcoholism turns out to be caused by a particular gene, are we going to tell the alcoholic: “Okay, you can’t help it, go right ahead, drink as much as you want, let’s celebrate your alcoholism, who cares if you drink yourself to death?, go ahead, get my 14 year old son intoxicated, have a parade about your being an alcoholic, there’s nothing you can do about it.”
This is something to think about. The genetic factor, even though it has zero scientific evidence to support it, is not valid reasoning for any particular behavior. It may help explain, but it does not exempt the individual from responsibility.
7:12 pm
I think Rick is right on. There are several gay couples, both men and women, in my church, and they are not different from anyone else. While heterosexual myself, if the person they happened to love is of the same sex, so what. The problem I see with groups like FRC is not that their values differ from mine, nor do I question their good intent. The sin that I see FRC commiting is advocating using government to impose their values on others. I personally am uncomfortable with homosexuality, do not care for abortion, and am opposed to alcohol, guns, drugs, and tobacco. I do not, however, think it a proper use of government to impose my personal values on others. It is regretable FRC feels differently.
7:14 pm
Now, I’m certain Rick can speak for himself, when and if it suits him. It’s patently obvious (at least to me) that nobody’s going to convince you of anything if you accept at face value “the Bible says it so it must be true.” Break that argument down, and you’ve got “it’s true because it’s true,” and it doesn’t take much brainpower to see why that doesn’t go anywhere. But if I wanted a “just because” argument for truth, thanks but no thanks—I’ll just become 10 years old again and ask my parents.
Now, I’m certain Rick can speak for himself, when and if it suits him. It’s patently obvious (at least to me) that nobody’s going to convince you of anything if you accept at face value “the Bible says it so it must be true.” Break that argument down, and you’ve got “it’s true because it’s true,” and it doesn’t take much brainpower to see why that doesn’t go anywhere. But if I wanted a “just because” argument for truth, thanks but no thanks—I’ll just become 10 years old again and ask my parents.
thinker from seattle:
I’m not so sure there’s no genetic evidence for homosexuality. There’s definitely neurological evidence. Besides, same-sex behavior of all kinds occurs in other animals, from insects to mammals. Are you somehow arguing here that’s it’s “unnatural”? if so, the evidence is not on your side.
And, granted, thinker, none of this would “exempt the individual from responsibility”; but responsibility for what? You seem to be assuming that homosexual is morally problematic from the get-go. Where’s your evidence? Why the assumption?
7:15 pm
Damn, sloppy post. Is my face red.
7:40 pm
brooks:
Rick wrote in jest: “I discriminate ruthlessly against people with red hair” and to continue the fun, I declared him to have imbalanced discrimination. With regard to FRC however, he’s being enormously provocative in his dismissing of the group, which is his right—and he backs it up with reasoning that cries out for debate. It’s too easy for Rick to take pot shots at the FRC stand on homosexual relationships, so maybe he should state the enlightened policy that he implies should be in its place. The main issue for me is that 80% of the people in any society don’t concern themselves with the making of rules, they just want clarity as to what the rules are and will adjust behavior accordingly. When the announced legal policy on marriage is that anything goes, then the entire next generation will be inclined to not bother learning or passing on the time tested expectations for husband, wife, mother and father. See for example “No Nordic Bliss by Stanley Kurtz at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmNlNWYxNmZjMjVjNjEzYjdhODAwYmFiYTUwMWQyMTM=
7:51 pm
Thinker
Thanks for going allong with my victim / sorry ass/
plea for help.
Could you give me a contact number?
I am an alcoholic, according to your born that way thinking.
I said nothing about parades, pride, or alcohol.
Intervention folks. works every time!
What I said, is….
My sister is gay..
and i love her anyway..
GOD Bless You!
8:02 pm
>>I’m not so sure there’s no genetic evidence for homosexuality. There’s definitely neurological evidence. Besides, same-sex behavior of all kinds occurs in other animals, from insects to mammals. Are you somehow arguing here that’s it’s “unnatural”? if so, the evidence is not on your side.< < said by brooks.
I’m not so sure there’s no genetic evidence for animals that devour their young. There’s definitely neurological evidence. Besides, animal devouring their young behavior of all kinds occurs in other animals, from insects to mammals. Are you somehow arguing here that it’s “unnatural”? If so, the evidence is not on your side.
Just saying…and remembering watching in horror as my pet white mouse killed her babies when I was in the 7th grade.
8:06 pm
Mary W Said:
12:24 pm
“I’d love to see a third party that adopted no particular religion and refused a stance on certain issues. The party would look much like the current party with the tumor of the evangelical base surgically extracted… with a chainsaw.”
Your wish would look a lot like the Nazi party, in the 1930’s, they tried that with a different religious group, I believe.
8:11 pm
Brooks says: “Now, I’m certain Rick can speak for himself, when and if it suits him. It’s patently obvious (at least to me) that nobody’s going to convince you of anything if you accept at face value ‘the Bible says it so it must be true.’ Break that argument down, and you’ve got ‘it’s true because it’s true,’ and it doesn’t take much brainpower to see why that doesn’t go anywhere. But if I wanted a “just because” argument for truth, thanks but no thanks—I’ll just become 10 years old again and ask my parents.”
Brooks, I didn’t say any of these things, I’m just pointing out a flaw in logic. I could also say that just because something is “natural” doesn’t make it “optimal”. For example, it is natural that many women die in childbirth. Does that make it optimal? Does that make it a good thing?
My point is that even if the scientific community discovers that “gay gene”, it doesn’t make a moral or value judgment. That is all I said.
And, I did state that there has never been a “gay gene” established. The primary scientist who reported the existence of such, later reported the findings as completely erroneous. But, in the end, it doesn’t matter.
The argument of what is optimal is not the same as the argument from origin.
8:16 pm
Mark30339:
Thanks, sometimes I’m slow when it comes to subtext.
And good point.
8:25 pm
JDM: I’m not sure what your post means, but if you took offense, I’m sorry, I didnt mean to give any—just attempting to engage you in theorizing from a philosophical standpoint.
I too have a gay family member to whom I’m very close. I’m also very fond of the partner. Doesn’t mean I approve of all his choices. I certainly don’t approve of all mine either! And honestly, my own “poor” choices bother me a whole lot more than anyone else’s choices. Did not mean to insult or offend you!
8:55 pm
Thinker
Attempting to engage me in theory …
LOL…
No prob.. and thanks..
11:18 pm
CinnamongirlUF:
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I wasn’t trying to make any kind of normative argument for any kind of behavior. But it’s kind of bizarre that you compare my argument to animals eating their young.
All I was attempting to say is that no one here has given any real evidence how homosexuality is somehow immoral or wrong, though there are several commenters who hint around it or otherwise imply it. If this is in fact what’s being implied, I’d just like to see someone present some facts backing it up.
11:50 pm
luvstotango,
“Your wish would look a lot like the Nazi party, in the 1930’s, they tried that with a different religious group, I believe.”
Complete nonsense. Logical fallacy. I absolutely love how evangelicals assume that without them in my bedroom I couldn’t tell right from wrong. Some day you’ll realize that your party uses you and doesn’t really give a rats ass about your beliefs. They say “gay marriage” and you run to the ballot box like whimpering children while they mock and laugh at you.
You know why that is? Because they know how you fear science. They know how you fear change. They know how you interpret your book, and they now how to use you. They know you’ve got a canned, nonsensical answer for every evolution and genetic fact that emerges through the scientific method. They know that they’ve got 80 million votes in the bag.
And you know what? The louder you scream about how moral and pure you try to be… The louder you pound your drums of war against science and reason… The more you try to legislate my privacy.. the harder your vaunted leaders will fall. The evangelical leadership is littered with embarrassment, humiliation, shame, and greed filled hypocrites.
Sorry, you lose. Thanks for playing though.
5:52 am
What crap, Rick. I’d need about 2 hours to argue your lack of logic on this one, and I don’t have the time (and I’m pretty sure you don’t want to hear it). So I’ll just sign off quoting your biggest laugher in the post:
“he is a nominal Christian, a family man, seems fairly honest for a politician, and cares about his community”
Fairly honest for a politician (I could link to about a dozen of your own posts describing what a dirty pol he is)?!? Nominal Christian (yeah, if black liberation theology is your thing)?!?
6:06 am
brooks,
My point is that there are all kinds of natural behaviors that occur in other animals that we humans reject on moral, cultural, ethical, religious or whatever grounds…
This would be a good time to bring up polygamy…all the arguments in favor of homosexuality apply to polygamy as well…and in fact, that practice is far more favorably regarded in historical and present day religious and secular culture than homosexuality….and re: your point about what happens naturally in other animals from insects to mammals , I notice that many animal species wholeheartedly practice it…
6:18 am
Rick I share your opinion about the Family Research Council and Value Voters BUT are you really that shocked by them? Palin was added to the ticket to energize the base which is code for fire of the social conservatives and reignite the culture wars.
And to all those here says being gay is a choice…then why would conservatives guys (think Larry Craig and Ted Haggard) with the most to lose still troll mens bathrooms and hire male prostitutes? If it is a choice then why engage in such destructive (in conservatives eyes) behavior?
I long for the day when the authoritarian Jesus freaks are kicked out of the big tent so I can be a Republican again.
6:46 am
aric
Two words:
Elliot Spitzer
7:38 am
This post is at the core of the confounding dichotomy of the GOP. When it comes to business or guns, it’s hand’s off. When it comes to the relationship of two consenting adults, it’s “we’ll tell you what’s right and what’s permissable.” I’m no biblical scholar, but the last time I checked, “thow shalt not engage in homosexuality” wasn’t one of the 10 Commandments and I don’t believe it’s one of the seven deadly sins, yet it gets the self-appointed morality police worked up more than anything else. That the platform of the FRC and other like-minded groups is taken to heart by the GOP does little to disuade me that it is a political party of bigotry, exclusion and fascist leanings.
9:53 am
CinnamongirlUF:
Granted. I get that. But—if homosexual behaviors are wrong, then why? That is what I’m asking.
10:50 am
Speaking as an agnostic/turned fundementalist Christian/turned agnostic again (leans hands off, don’t tell me what to do), to be honest, not sure… I think it depends on who we want to be as a people and we will duke it out over time. That’s what is going on now…and I think homosexual behavior is close to being normalized, if not already…
But ideas and changes have consequences, intended and otherwise…and we’re going to have to deal with that…remember this prediction, we will be reading and arguing on threads like this someday about the rights of people who want to normalize polygamy, maybe even with a weird alliance between Mormans and Muslims in the courts…
During my college years when Roe v. Wade came into existance, who knew that we would eventually be arguing about the rights of babies who survive abortions…and who knows where that argument will lead?
Sometime, go find the pictures posted of what goes on during San Francisco’s gay pride celebrations….not that you can’t find pictures of heterosexual “celebrations” as well, just as depraved…ewwww…
AND, neither side has a monopoly on trying to shove their views down the throats of others…
Although it’s hard to articulate, my gut tells me we’re screwing up royally …still struggling with all this…
Not thrilled with who we seem to be becoming…
PS..on a personal level…pissed me off when a hairdresser where I go referred to a woman as a “breeder”...too bad about the stereotype but it happened at the beauty salon, can’t help that…of course, equally pissed me off when a neighbor called me a bitch…still don’t know why
10:51 am
Oh yeah, the above post from me for brooks
12:07 pm
CinnamongirlUF:
So, still not sure what you’re trying to say.
I’m talking specifically here about the behavior of two consenting adults, in the privacy of their home. Not any of the freakshows you might see in parades or whatnot (and yes, I’ve lived in San Fran).
Tell me, PLEASE, because I haven’t heard anything approaching an answer: Given the qualifiers I’ve described above, what is wrong with homosexual behavior?
Jeez.
1:36 pm
I don’t care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home.
1:47 pm
So then, nothing wrong with homosexual behavior, then?
3:08 pm
Not as far as I am concerned given your qualifiers
5:16 pm
CinnamongirlUF:
That’s all I was wondering.
There are things no one should be doing in the middle of the street in broad daylight, straight or otherwise; but I figure that’s what public decency laws are for.
12:06 am
HEY RICK:
It is well documented that homosexuals suffer from depression, loneliness, and have far higher rates of STDs than do heterosexuals.
You may not want to acknowledge the facts, yet they exist. Rick, you have a propensity for not dealing 100% with the truth on many of you posts. I’d say you usually go about 75% of the way, but ultimately stop, based on fear? lack of guts?
I can’t figure you neocons out, you are not that “right wing”, you equivocate.
4:44 am
HEY KENNY:
I’ve been trying to wrangle some actual evidence of the supposed evils of homosexuality from folks commenting here, but with no luck.
Do you have actual facts to back up your “well documented” claims? Or are you just foaming at the mouth like the rest?
9:10 am
Hey brooks…
Is that a little bit of spittle I see on the corner of your mouth?
Why, yes, I believe it is
10:21 am
CinnamongirlUF:
Hey, congratulations on thinking of that (not quite) all by yourself! Don’t wear yourself out.
I’m just challenging nutjobs to back up their claims. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for factual support for falsifiable claims. Hope that doesn’t offend anyone’s delicate sensibilities.
12:09 pm
brooks isn’t going to like it, but statistics also tell us that STD rates are higher for blacks than whites.
A simple google search can reveal these truths to deniers.
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_HIV_Rate_Raises_Among_Blacks_and_Gay_Men_CDC_Report_Shows_24372.html
http://www.health24.com/news/Depression/1-903,47941.asp
The second link also mentions higher suicide rates, which I forgot to mention. Note also how they “blame” the statistics on (guess?) heterosexuals and (booga, booga) their “discrimination”.
People are really getting tired of this blame the hetero White male for everything nonsense.
12:39 pm
Hi brooks…
I am just wondering why you think anyone would want to engage you in the discussion you so dearly want, what with all your hostility and name calling and sneering superiority…
I have to admit, the thought occurred to me that it might be fun to give you what you want, and supply you with a bunch of links and imagine you scurrying all over the internet, furiously lining up your arguments, knitted brow in concentration, googling like crazy….:)
The thought will keep me amused all afternoon…
2:39 pm
CinnamongirlUF:
Ooh, yeah, imagine me, the sneering ‘elitist’, wanting actual reasons. :p
“Name calling”? I didn’t call you any names. Simply asked you to back up your part of our discussion—which took long enough, btw. Isn’t that what blogs are for? Discussion? Exchange of information? Call me confused.
Obviously the barely concealed vitriol beneath many of the posts here don’t matter a whit to you, but they certainly smacked of hostility to me. I don’t see it as a stretch to use the term “nutjob” for that kind of unreason.
Anyway, Kenny: Thank you for showing some integrity and doing a little research, and giving me the only thing I was asking of anyone here, after all: evidence. It says something that no one else even bothered.
3:39 pm
Christian conservatives have a place at the table. They aren’t what has been bothering more and more over the last 8 years (much worse in the last 4). It’s the “Kos-ification” of the right, the “all or nothing” entitlement more than a few feel, and this applies to far more than just Christian conservatives. I dislike the sense of entitlement that the self-described “base” has. It was particularly disturbing during the immigration wars, when we saw “shamnesty!” and other crap flung around. Look, if it’s a coalition, there is no base, and if there is a base, there is no coalition, only others who have to toe your party line. I don’t see a difference between that and the nutroots. A coalition requires compromise, and that means you, or I, or Jim Bob may not get everything we want. Life is like that. We were supposed to have learned that as children, but apparently most of the “base” did not.
6:01 pm
Values are “dangerous?” Are Obama’s values (he is a nominal Christian, a family man, seems fairly honest for a politician, and cares about his community) going to attack us?”
Strawman alert! Hitler loved puppies too. It’s not Obama’s family or that he ‘cares’ (which is a catch-all for anyone from a marxist to paleocon and as noted Obama’s), those are not relevent to Obama’s values as expressed through a political agenda. Obama’s “Change” slogan goes back to Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. It’s a culture change (shades of Pat B.’s ‘culture war’ but on the other side).
Consider these value propositions of concern:
1. He thinks when life begins to deserve moral recognition is above his paygrade and is extremist in favor of abortion on demand and taxpayer funding of abortions.
2. He has said he would work to undo the Defense of Marriage Act and will appoint judicial activists who will do the same from the bench.
3. While he claims to be for RKBA, he’s supported gun control laws that would gut them.
There is much more, in the lifting of socialist-style ‘community service’ as the highest form of patriotism;
the support for the Fairness Doctrine and the end of the Union secret ballot to eliminate obstacles to the leftist agenda.
Obama’s socialist, secularist and elitist (“clinging to God and guns”) values will, if enacted, makes USA the dissipated culture-of-death civilization-in-decline that we see in Old Europes most pallid precinct.
A Danger? Yup.