December 26, 2013

Mark Steyn writes about "de-normalizing" — being put "beyond the pale of polite society and mainstream culture."

And he's sorry his editor at National Review "does not grasp the stakes" in the "Duck Dynasty" flap.
Indeed, he seems inclined to “normalize” what GLAAD is doing. But, if he truly finds my “derogatory language” offensive, I’d rather he just indefinitely suspend me than twist himself into a soggy pretzel of ambivalent inertia trying to avoid the central point — that a society where lives are ruined over an aside because some identity-group... decides it must be so is ugly and profoundly illiberal.
Via Power Line, which says:
As to the terms Steyn used, I understand [National Review editor, Jason Lee] Steorts’ point. I too would have liked the column better without the unfunny Rat Pack joke. And I agree with Steorts that courteous disagreement, devoid of insults, is usually preferable to lack of courtesy, even when one is disagreeing with the dangerous and the uncivil.
The point of the Rat Pack joke — “How do you make a fruit cordial?”/ “Be nice to him.” — wasn't that it's funny. It's that not too long ago junk like that was the norm. It was probably considered sweet, gentle and even gay-friendly. Steyn is paying attention to how cultural norms change. This is something I've been talking about too, and I am confounded by what a hard time people have understanding this subject. (Read my posts and the response in the comments here and here.)

Some things really are beyond what decent people who care about their standing in society want to be caught saying, even in jokes, even in bandying around ideas in a noncommittal fashion. But what belongs in that category of things you don't want to say (unless you're okay with being a pariah)? The content of that category is continually evolving, and some players in the culture — like GLAAD in the "Duck Dynasty" incident — are getting quite aggressive in their efforts to push things into that category.

I don't like this kind of cultural aggression. I'd like to see slower change, with more tolerance of disagreement, and more allowance for debate and expression. I'm not too sympathetic to the homophobes — the mild and the virulent — if when they had the cultural upper hand they squelched the people who are now out to de-normalize them. Turnabout is fair play, and karma is a bitch. But free speech is a higher value, and the greater benefit to all of us lies in keeping the conversation rolling.

ADDED: Here's something a little different that corresponds to that Rat Pack joke, not in the realm of comedy, but in a best selling history book that was published in 1961 and got high praise in places like The New York Times Book Review and won the National Book Award. It's William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." Listening to the audiobook, I was struck by the references to homosexuality, made in an offhandedly negative way that you'd never encounter in a book published today by a respectable publisher and an author who meant to be taken seriously. Examples:
A tough, ruthless, driving man— albeit, like so many of the early Nazis, a homosexual— [Ernst Roehm] helped to organize the first Nazi strong-arm squads which grew into the S.A., the army of storm troopers which he commanded until his execution by Hitler in 1934....

Such was the weird assortment of misfits who founded National Socialism.... The confused locksmith Drexler provided the kernel, the drunken poet Eckart some of the “spiritual” foundation, the economic crank Feder what passed as an ideology, the homosexual Roehm the support of the Army and the war veterans, but it was now the former tramp, Adolf Hitler... who took the lead....

“I know Esser is a scoundrel,” Hitler retorted in public, “but I shall hold on to him as long as he can be of use to me.” This was to be his attitude toward almost all of his close collaborators, no matter how murky their past— or indeed their present. Murderers, pimps, homosexual perverts, drug addicts or just plain rowdies were all the same to him if they served his purposes....

But the brown-shirted S.A. never became much more than a motley mob of brawlers. Many of its top leaders, beginning with its chief, Roehm, were notorious homosexual perverts. Lieutenant Edmund Heines, who led the Munich S.A., was not only a homosexual but a convicted murderer. These two and dozens of others quarreled and feuded as only men of unnatural sexual inclinations, with their peculiar jealousies, can....

No other party in Germany came near to attracting so many shady characters. As we have seen, a conglomeration of pimps, murderers, homosexuals, alcoholics and blackmailers flocked to the party as if to a natural haven. Hitler did not care, as long as they were useful to him.....

279 comments:

1 – 200 of 279   Newer›   Newest»
southcentralpa said...

From your lips to GLAAD's ears ... (solely in a metaphorical sense, of course)

St. George said...

I'm not following what's going on between Steyn and his "editor" Jason Lee Steorts.

Was Steorts overruled by NRO's publisher? That would explain how the supposedly offending text saw the light of day.

If not, how is Steorts Steyn's editor if he cannot edit (i.e. delete) material Steyn submits?

Finally, and most amusingly, doesn't Stoerts understand that it is he, not Steyn, who will be leaving? Alternatively, Steyn will leave at the end of his contract. Either way, Steorts' future at NRO is dim.

Humperdink said...

Mark Steyn is the best political writer on the planet. James Taranto is a distant second.

NR is beginning to remind me of the Mitch McConnell/ John Boehner wing of the GOP. Rudderless.

Shouting Thomas said...

I'm not too sympathetic to the homophobes...

This is the problem Althouse.

There aren't any "homophobes."

Just a bunch of parents like you who want grandchildren of their own blood.

If you are going to continue to insist that some sort of "bigotry" against gays is a cultural or social problem, prove it.

The fact that people make fun of what gays do sexually is not proof. In my social and family circle, all sexual behavior is the target of humor. So, what you're asking for, which is that gays be exempted from being targets of humor about sexuality, is a demand that gays be granted a higher, preferential status.

Michael K said...

NRO has been trending left for a while now. The firing of Derbyshire was a milestone in their trek to PC toxic land. The no name "editor" is probably wondering why the coal in his stocking yesterday.

The Germans are usually ahead of us in ugly trends.

mesquito said...

If you hold the position on gay marriage that Barack Obama held until about 37 minutes ago you need to shut the hell up bigot.

Shouting Thomas said...

Here's the traditional role for gays that you, Althouse, either refuse to acknowledge or are unaware of...

Gay people marry somebody of the opposite sex and produce children of their parents' blood. They stay married and raise their children. Thus, they fulfill their obligations to their family.

They are not expected to deny what they are. They are expected to be "hypocrites." They do their duty, do whatever else they feel they must do, keep their mouths shut about it and go on with life.

This is not so much to ask people to do, Althouse. This is not "homophobia." It is something that we all must do in one area or another of our lives.

This role has the added benefit of putting some brakes on the sexual roaming of gay men, who are prone to kill themselves if left with no inhibitions on their behavior.

I've seen this model work marvelously well in Filipino culture. Of course, if a fag is just too damned flaming, he goes the totally out of the closet route. But, that's a decided minority of gays.

John Lynch said...

-Humperdink

Yeah, I don't understand what NRO is for. It's not fun to read, and it doesn't seem to have much to say. It's not like we can't read the same sorts of things elsewhere, and the unique content they do have is irrelevant.

It was a lot more fun before 2010 or so. If there's no Steyn and no Derbyshire, pretty soon Goldberg will be gone as well. Then what?

I think NRO is turning into the New Republic for the Right. Boring and pointless, even when they are correct.

YoungHegelian said...

You wanna see "change in cultural norms"? Get yourself an issue of National Lampoon from the 70's!

Racist, sexist, gay-bashing jokes are all there a-plenty. Hell, I remember stuff that would get you arrested for child pornography if they caught you with it now.

And it was all written by good lefties & liberals, and sold to 13 yr old kids like me over the counter in the local mall bookstore. Even in conservative northern Alabama.

Shouting Thomas said...

Since I lived for decades in the gay entertainment district of New York City, Chelsea, I can tell you with great confidence that ridiculing the sexual behavior of straights is the dominant theme of gay nightlife and entertainment.

What category of sin of bigotry is this?

Answer. It isn't.

But Althouse is suggesting that straights using the same style of humor in reference to gays is a form of bigotry.

As I've said repeatedly, Althouse is all about preferential treatment and deference to gays.

West Texas Intermediate Crude said...

The views of roughly 50% of this country have indeed been de-normalized in most of higher education, mass culture, and the media. A person is just not supposed to disagree; it's considered de-normal to even think that, for example, abortion is morally wrong, or that minority people should be allowed to rise or fall on their own merit, or that same sex marriage is not a good thing. Even voting Republican falls into that category among large swaths of the American public.

One conservative internet commenter refers to modern progressives as TWANLOC- those who are no longer our countrymen.
This is dangerous. We may believe that civil war is a 19th century anachronism, that nobody is going to get all violent because 2 fellas get married, or a 50 year old guy is forced to buy maternity insurance, or a high school boy is allowed to use the girls' restroom because it feels better for him, or a schoolkid is suspended for nibbling a pastry into the shape of a pistol and noting that it looks like a gun.

I'm not so sure about that anachronism thing.

Cedarford said...

I do not remember the Religious Right or anyone else mounting organized efforts from the 70s on to get people that had pro-gay opinions fired.

That is the difference between them and fascist leftists.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

I'm not too sympathetic to the homophobes . . .

How about we start by not using the ridiculous and totally inappropriate word "homophobia". Fear of homosexuals? Fear?? Really? Bull shit.

How about a hard-wired uncomfortableness towards the acts they perform? Not that different in kind than the Darwinian hard-wired uncomfortableness towards, say, incest.

As I wrote in a previous post, ancient man did not know WHY bad things happen as a result of things like incest and anal sex, just THAT they did. Those who had this hard-wired revulsion left their genes to us.

We are now far beyond 'fear', and we KNOW why disproportionately bad things happen with certain behaviors. It is NOT irrational to notice this, and act on it, comment on it, shame it, joke about it, whatever.

GLAAD folks are all about 'consequences' these days. How about then gracefully bearing the social consequences of abnormal sexual behavior? You are free to do it, but should not claim immunity from the words about it, from others.

Allowing consenting adults is one thing, celebrating, or special status, another.

There are innocents involved in affecting the livelihood of a family provider.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AJ Lynch said...

Libs love to say we need to have "conversations" when what we need is more common sense.

SGT Ted said...

ST has is right in his first post.

The proof is that we can say "homophobe" all day long and no one talks about how it is simply a derogatory calumny directed at anybody that disagrees with their ideology and designed to shut them up, but we cannot say "fag" out loud.

We can bash and make fun of promiscuous hetero men all day long, but not the gay ones.

That's not a liberal culture in action. It is, rather, merely inflicting social conformity on a different set of people, while giving a pass to the new, preferred, dominant culture to discriminate in a way that isn't acceptable when applied to them.

That's called "bigotry".

TosaGuy said...

Steyn is a fun read in small doses, but his sky is falling on every issue gets tiresome.

Crying racist, etc. is in the process of jumping the shark because it is used for the tiniest offenses.

virgil xenophon said...

There is an early am talk radio show out of Coral Gables, Fl, (5am-9am) in which the two conservative hosts often intentionally bait homosexuals via keen observations about the real-world dysfunctions that attend to their life-styles. When gays call up to protest about how downtrodden their lot is in America due to "the system" the hosts ask: "Can you give me any examples where you PERSONALLY have ever experienced any work-related prejudice harmful to your career or obtaining one, ability to acquire housing, other government services, etc? The answer is invariably "No, but.."

QED. Case closed..

Paco Wové said...

"I'm not too sympathetic to the homophobes"

...did somebody say "de-normalizing"?

Ralph Hyatt said...

GLAAD and others are trying to place Christian theology beyond the pale.

There is no getting around the fact that the New Testament states that homosexual activity is immoral.

The "hate speech" Robertson is being condemned for is a paraphrase of Biblical texts.

While "elite" opinion may be that Christians are stupid, deluded, superstitious rubes who are "easily led" we can see where this ultimately leads.

http://christiannews.net/2013/09/10/uk-street-preacher-jailed-over-false-hate-speech-charge-following-lesbian-complaint/

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/august5/15.22.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/christianity_or_thoughtcrime.html

paul a'barge said...

I don't like this kind of cultural aggression.

This kind of cultural aggression has been going on for just about forever. The American culture has virtually never been without a word du jour, from KIKE to NIGGER to NEGRO to COMMIE to ... oh well, you get the point.

The Culture War has always been the War Over the Vocabulary.

I'm all for demonizing first the word and then the people who use the word, but frankly when GLAAD uses the War Over the Vocabulary as a bludgeon to shut up people who don't agree with them, well ... at that point, it's on like donkey kong, and it's past time to give even one inch of Vocabulary Ground to the QUEERS.

virgil xenophon said...

PS: Sorry, that's out of Cape Coral/Pompano Beech area..

Paco Wové said...

"I'd like to see slower change, with more tolerance of disagreement, and more allowance for debate and expression"

Not sure if you've noticed, Prof., but the people I assume you're trying to talk to here, GLAAD and their allies, aren't listening to you or engaging with you. I assume they feel the structure starting to give way, and so they will only push harder.

Shouting Thomas said...

Dean Martin was the constant butt of jokes for his drinking and skirt chasing.

What kind of prejudice is that, professor?

jacksonjay said...


Frank Sinatra: "Be nice to a fruit." Too much!

Westboro Baptist: "God Hates Fags." Too Much!

DuckMan: "Normal men prefer pussy to asshole." Let the conversation roll!

Shouting Thomas said...

So, now you've gone full Godwin, prof!

Yeah, that Rat Pack was just the same as the Nazis.

Farmer said...

This is something I've been talking about too, and I am confounded by what a hard time people have understanding this subject.

You've been doing this a lot in the past year or so, and almost always in regards to comments you make about homosexuality. It's as though you can't conceive that your readers would disagree with your take if they only understood it.

I mean, that might be. And it might be so for a lot of reasons, including that you might not be very good at explaining your take.

On the other hand, maybe many of us do understand your take, and think it's bullshit.

virgil xenophon said...

Might as well give proper credit. It's the Steve Kane show, 1470 WWNN--the longest running show in S. Fla since 1983. He used to work with the Joe Pyne TV show in 60s and then was a producer on the Dick Cavett TV show, before relocating to Fla.

Chef Mojo said...

Does this mean I can't say I'm "fagged out" when I'm tired?

Language is weird.

DKWalser said...

Althouse -- We're on the same page. Over time, the meanings and usage of words change. What was once considered acceptable becomes unacceptable. That's been going on since the beginning of time. I deeply resent GLAAD, feminists, environmentalists, and others who seek to use this natural process to foreclose debate and to limit legitimate inquiry. The president of Harvard should be able to speculate about an organic cause for the differences in the performance of men and women in the hard sciences.

I also resent those who fail to grant some grace to those late in adopting the new norms. My grandmother was once upbraided for using a term to refer to blacks that had fallen out of favor. This was in the late '70's and she couldn't remember whether the current preferred term was colored, African-American, black, or something else, so she used a term from her youth: darkies. In her youth, the term was not considered offensive. (Shirley Temple used it in song.) Some 80 years since she first learned the term, it's use had become offensive. Grandma was trying to be polite. Her only fault was in not keeping up with the culture. Her hearers should have cut her some slack.

sunsong said...

When I read that article by Steyn, I thought 'wow, he is really lowering his standards'. He used to be really sharp and funny.

I don't think the 'normalization' of homosexuality is going to slow down. In 2012 six states allowed same-sex marriage. Now one year later 18 states do. It's tripled in a year. I really doubt it is going to slow down.

What folks on the far right need to realize, imo, is that it is not so much *what* they say as it is *how* they say it. I understand that Jesse Jackson is asking to meet with A&E execs. Lol.

SGT Ted said...

Routinely calling dissenting people "homophobes" is just the gay version of calling people "faggots".

It's purpose is to dehumanize and marginalize people, not for their conduct, but for their very thoughts and words.

Ann Althouse said...

"How about we start by not using the ridiculous and totally inappropriate word "homophobia". Fear of homosexuals? Fear?? Really? Bull shit."

So, ironically, you're telling me what not to say? I don't particularly like the term, but it's an alternative to gay-hating, which seems too strong.

Actually, the prefix in "homophobia" is worse than the suffix. "Homo" means the same, so the literal meaning should be fear of what is the same as whatever it is you are.

But some people really are afraid of gay people. They feel threatened by gay sex. Shouting Thomas is continually modeling that neurosis here in the comments, embarrassing himself.

I don't censor those comments for a number of reasons, including that they are self-refuting.

Ann Althouse said...

"It's purpose is to dehumanize and marginalize people, not for their conduct, but for their very thoughts and words."

It's not dehumanizing at all to refer to the irrational fears that plague the mind. It's what humans do. Other animals lack the mental life to whip themselves into such a state. And as for plants and inert material, they have no fears and feelings at all.

Shouting Thomas said...

But some people really are afraid of gay people. They feel threatened by gay sex. Shouting Thomas is continually modeling that neurosis here in the comments, embarrassing himself.

Although, oddly, Shouting Thomas lived for three decades right on the corner of 23rd Street and 9th Avenue in NYC in the center of the gay nightlife district.

I'm so afraid of gay people and gay sex.

Address the issues I've raised instead of tossing out the standard idiot insults.

I bet you can't.

Want to eat some crow, Nutty Professor?

Ann Althouse said...

"I don't think the 'normalization' of homosexuality is going to slow down. In 2012 six states allowed same-sex marriage. Now one year later 18 states do. It's tripled in a year. I really doubt it is going to slow down."

It's not so much the normalization of homosexuality that he's talking about but the de-normalization of the belief that homosexual conduct is wrong. I think it's possible to maintain a civil discourse in which decent people can believe a range of things about homosexuality, but if that isn't possible, then I want the gay people to win. If those who adhere to the traditional belief can't figure out how to seem friendly and good-hearted about it — as Pope Francis, by the way, seems to be trying to do — then you will find it excluded from the realm of the decent. You will lose. It's readable in the culture now that you are fated to lose if you stay ugly (as Robertson did). You need to show some love and acceptance. Oddly enough, that would be more Jesus-like.

rhhardin said...

I say move the pale to compensate.

Shouting Thomas said...

So, you avoided, once again, discussing the precise issues I raised, Althouse, and produced the "I am the future!" rant.

Answer the precise issues I raised.

I bet you can't.

Shouting Thomas said...

Althouse, you're failing your own lawyer test miserably here.

You're doing your damnedest to avoid direct answers.

Ann Althouse said...

"I do not remember the Religious Right or anyone else mounting organized efforts from the 70s on to get people that had pro-gay opinions fired."

Does the military count as an organization?

Shouting Thomas said...

I told you that Myrna was smarter than you.

rhhardin said...

The universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate, and there's no reason it can't carry the pale with it.

Shouting Thomas said...

Althouse, answer the specific question.

Why is humor about the sexual behavior of gays off limits?

Humor about the sexual behavior of everybody else is just standard human behavior.

Farmer said...

Shouting Thomas, get some air or something. You sound crazy.

Shouting Thomas said...

Stop being a coward, Althouse.

Answer me.

rhhardin said...

Homosexuality in the 60s was reason to cancel your security clearance not owing to depravity but owing to vulnerability to blackmail.

That's half the military equation.

The other half is good order and discipline.

Ann Althouse said...

I remember exactly when I first heard of homosexuality. It was in October 1964, when I was 13.

"Goldwater's campaign offices distributed bumper stickers and buttons bearing slogans such as, "LBJ - LIGHT BULB JENKINS: NO WONDER HE TURNED THE LIGHTS OUT" and "ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ, BUT DON'T GO NEAR THE YMCA". During the remainder of the campaign Goldwater occasionally alluded to the scandal. In speeches he referred to Johnson's 'curious crew who would run the country' to the knowing amusement of his audience. At the time, observers noted the difference between the way Goldwater alluded to the scandal and the way the Republican National Committee and Goldwater's running mate, William E. Miller, used it to exploit 'popular fears.' Goldwater later said he chose not to make the incident a campaign issue. 'It was a sad time for Jenkins' wife and children, and I was not about to add to their private sorrow,' he wrote in his autobiography. 'Winning isn't everything. Some things, like loyalty to friends or lasting principle, are more important.'"

Shouting Thomas said...

Lyndon Johnson was also known to humiliate his heterosexual opponents by demanding that interviews with him took place while he took a shit in the john, Althouse.

Humiliation and smear tactics proceed in every direction.

Ron said...

On the point about the '70's National Lampoon....It's always amazed me that the writer of "Civil War Between the Negroes and the Jews" (January 1980) gets no grief for this once he becomes the Hollywood darling.

Shouting Thomas said...

So, prof, you concede that you have no answer to why gays get preferential treatment, and should be exempt from humor about their sexual behavior?

sunsong said...

It's not so much the normalization of homosexuality that he's talking about but the de-normalization of the belief that homosexual conduct is wrong. I think it's possible to maintain a civil discourse in which decent people can believe a range of things about homosexuality, but if that isn't possible, then I want the gay people to win. If those who adhere to the traditional belief can't figure out how to seem friendly and good-hearted about it — as Pope Francis, by the way, seems to be trying to do — then you will find it excluded from the realm of the decent. You will lose. It's readable in the culture now that you are fated to lose if you stay ugly (as Robertson did). You need to show some love and acceptance. Oddly enough, that would be more Jesus-like.

Nice. I agree with you. Being more kind and more loving is always good advice and is also good politics. "How" you say something matters.

campy said...

Does the military count as an organization?

Is Bill Clinton part of the religious right?

rhhardin said...

Some guy long ago on John and Ken (KFI) was explaining the sexual attraction of his insect snuff films, on the occasion of California outlawing them.

As I remember, some woman steps on an insect with high heel.

I don't know about production values.

Anyway he said something like that a kid sees his mom step on a bug at the same time what he's for some other reason sexually interested, and the association sticks.

So apparently there's a non-born route to brain wiring.

Whatever homosexuality is, it simply has another object than heterosexuality for its nonsensical obsession.

The heterosexual nonsense happens to have survival value but isn't different.

The nonsense aspect of either joined with its obsessive control is great humor, mostly about the human situation.

It also might explain revulsion, in that the wrong nonsensical object is involved. One not attractive to the revulsed.

SGT Ted said...

It's not dehumanizing at all to refer to the irrational fears that plague the mind. It's what humans do.

The individual and public health reasons that actually validate the Christian opposition to sexual sin's isn't irrational at all.

Well then, what's the nasty exclusionary word for the gays that think that a Christian expressing that homosexuality is a sin like adultery, porn and masturbation is the equivalent of active civil discrimination against homosexuals using the law?

Oh that's right we DO have a word for them. "Bigots" is the word.

I would say that there is a lot of irrational fear coming from the homos these days when it comes to their views of practicing Christians.

I am a sexual sinner just the same as the homosexuals, according to biblical law.

I don't have a derogatory word for them calling me a sinner because I desire to look at porn or masturbate that is meant to make them unfit for polite society. I just ignore them and say "whatever" and reach for the lotion.

So, the question becomes why do the homosexuals have such a word? Because they want to de-normalize ALL dissent as extremism, hate and fear. You are evidently on board with that, despite your denials.

It's a rhetorical tactic, not an effort at discussion.

CWJ said...

YoungHegelian@11:07

I hear you!

Early National Lampoon was the last humor magazine to which I laughed out loud.

It was funny precisely because it had talented writers NOT looking over their shoulders.

"Canada, the Retarded Giant on our doorstep" could not be published today.

Shouting Thomas said...

The issue Althouse is actually struggling with here is guilt, and how it is incurred within the individual.

She's obviously stuck in believing that guilt within homosexuals about what they do exists because society shames them.

This is not really how sexual guilt works.

Everybody experiences sexual guilt. Sexual guilt emanates from within us. That is why Catholicism places confession so prominently at the front of religious practice.

Confession is meant to teach the individual to examine his conscience and determine how his actions affect other people.

The struggle that homosexuals face with guilt over their sexual actions is no different than the struggle we all face. Althouse is in error in assuming that it is.

That guilt will not go away if society changes its mind about gay marriage. The reciprocal obligation of the child to produce grandchildren for his parents will still be a source of guilt and emotional struggle.

Bill Crawford said...

Hi Ann,

I think it's possible to maintain a civil discourse in which decent people can believe a range of things about homosexuality, but if that isn't possible, then I want the gay people to win.

What does a win for gay people look like? Does it look like prohibiting calling homosexual behavior sinful?

SGT Ted said...

I want the guys that say "God hates fags" to lose.

I want the guys that say "Christians are homophobes foe merely adhering to the Biblical definition of sin" to lose too.

Saying something is a sin isn't the same as advocating outlawing it to punish conduct.

We don't call Jews and Muslims "porcine-phobes" and insist they praise bacon and BBQ, or else be fired from their jobs, despite their "irrational fears" of pork products in their diets. We respect their dietary traditions, even if we think they are kooky, or archaeic and leave them alone.

If the Sacred Bacon and BBQ can be called "unclean" out loud with no religious boycotts of Muslims and Jews, then the homos need to just suck it up and live in America like the rest of us.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Most people aren't 'afraid' of gay sex. They're just sick of hearing about it all the time.

Look-- what you do in your house with the adults you live with is your business. I don't want or need to know about it. This goes for gays, straights, polyamorists, etc. I have my own life. Unless I'm interested in sleeping with you, I don't CARE about your sexual preferences.

The problem is that the activists WANT us to care. They want us to pay attention.

It's like the guy I used to work with (who's since become a lesbian woman) who was always going on about how he was gay and no one understood him. His dad threatened to stop paying for college because he was gay. (Actually, it was more complicated. His dad threatened to cut him off because he was cutting class, going to protests, getting arrested for assaulting cops and needing his dad to bail him out. But... he HAD to go to those protests, because he was gay!!!!)

His coworkers wouldn't understand... they nagged him because he was gay. (This was at a bookstore in a college town. ) It had nothing to do with his ranting about gay rights when he was supposed to be working.

It was offensive that people said they didn't care that he was gay, because he was GAY!!! He liked men!!!!! How could we not care about that????????

Meanwhile, the non-activist gay guys who just went to class, did their work, and dated who the wanted without proclaiming their homosexuality at every turn? They didn't have the same issues.

The problem isn't that some people are gay. The problem is that for some reason, some people decide that their sexual preferences are the ONLY THING that matter about them.

They need to get hobbies. They've pissed off everyone by being boring.

Ann Althouse said...

"What does a win for gay people look like? Does it look like prohibiting calling homosexual behavior sinful?"

"Prohibiting" is clearly the wrong world. We're talking about social pressure. People are learning how they will be thought of depending on what they say and how they say it.

If you say something like what Robertson did, people may think you are a lout and not want to be around you. If you're insensitive enough, you might not even notice.

Shouting Thomas said...

So, what do we do about the Hedda Lettuce in every gay community who makes his living as a nightclub diva, ridiculing the mannerisms and sexual practices of straights, Althouse?

Quit dodging the issue.

Basil said...

Professor, you seem to have a hard time with basic Christian theology - the idea that one can and must both love the sinner and hate the sin. By definition, Christians cannot be homophobes because that infers hatred of homosexuals as persons, which the Bible forbids.

Christians are instructed by Jesus himself to reject sin and to live Godly lives, which means to live in harmony with God's creation. Therefore, Christians reject normalization of any sin and fight against the cultural acceptance of all sin.

Leftists, including but not limited to homosexual activists, argue against the concept of sin. They want moral and cultural validation of whatever subjective conduct they choose to engage in. As a child of the 60's surely you remember, "If it feels good, do it."

The problem with subjective morality and law is that it is leads to the loss of the Enlightenment ideal of law as universally constant and applicable equally to everyone.

The culture will regress (and has regressed since the 1960's) to one of the two pre-Enlightenment models - 1) tribalism, either "four legs good, two legs bad" style or racial/ethnic conflcit; or 2) "Big Brother" Soviet Russia and Cuba style repression.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton preach the tribalism model (as does Attorney General Holder).

GLADD seems to be more toward the "Big Brother" model Soviet model of stamping out dissenting speech.

Our nation is bankrupt ($17 trillion) and our culture is now one where the morality necessary for a community to thrive does not exist in many communities.

We have and are following the path advocated by Bill Ayers and have rejected the warnings of Sen Moynihan. In 1960 we were a wealthy nation with strong, intact families and great moral clarity and purpose. Now we are the poorest country in history and are awash in disfunction and disinteration.

The question is why? Why is America killing itself?

It's not homophobia that is doing it, that's for sure.

Shouting Thomas said...

Do you simply conceded, Althouse?

Are you, the world's most dutiful schoolgirl, simply unable to answer my simple question?

Why is it bigotry for straights to ridicule and lampoon gays, but it is acceptable for gays to do the same to straights?

Come on, coward. Answer.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Australia's Tim Blair got himself crossways of the PC police. He considered their points and issued an introspective apology. I wish more conservatives would be this accepting of criticism.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/

Anglelyne said...

...and the greater benefit to all of us lies in keeping the conversation rolling.

It's your own whiggishness that's "confounding" you here, not other people's lack of comprehension: you (sincerely) believe you know what constitutes good change, that the conversation rolls in one direction only - all else is ignorance, obscurantism, prejudice, reaction - and that nothing is unforeseen in your vision of progress, except the dilatory tactics of the not-yet-enlightened.

Blinkered by your hoary "progressive" preconceptions, you can't see that all of what you perceive as bumps on the road, roadblocks, wrong turns, are the conversation - just not the one your theories tell you we should be having.

This is astoundingly puerile, but it's what enables you to come up with amazing Orwellian convolutions like this:

The content of that category is continually evolving, and some players in the culture — like GLAAD in the "Duck Dynasty" incident — are getting quite aggressive in their efforts to push things into that category.

It "confounds" me that you are blind to all the contradictions and unwarranted assumptions that you've packed into that statement.

You, a law professor!

SGT Ted said...

As long as gays are fair game for the same sort of targeting and social smearing and economic punishment simply because they are gay and speak out loud about their desires, them I am cool with whatever happens in the arena of ideas.

But if the gays are not to be subject to the same as they dish out, no I am not for it. I am not for exclusionary double standards when it comes to free speech.

Shouting Thomas said...

Althouse, I think you should cease even commenting on this issue until you answer my question.

You've clearly decided on preferential and deferential treatment for gays.

This "people make fun of what gays do" thesis of yours is stupid. Everybody makes fun of what everybody does.

This and opposition to gay marriage is all you've been able to produce as support for your "homophobia" thesis.

You're full of shit. You've got nothing. You just want preferential treatment for gays.

jacksonjay said...

I LMAO!

Anthony said...

Damn heteroChristophobes. . . .

jacksonjay said...


To Mr. LoudMouth Thomas:

The obvious answer is The Other.

Mike said...

Ann said: If those who adhere to the traditional belief can't figure out how to seem friendly and good-hearted about it — as Pope Francis, by the way, seems to be trying to do — then you will find it excluded from the realm of the decent. You will lose. It's readable in the culture now that you are fated to lose if you stay ugly (as Robertson did). You need to show some love and acceptance. Oddly enough, that would be more Jesus-like.

Your continued obtuseness about the Duck GQ affair leads me to believe you still didn't actually read what Phil Robertson said in the article. How much more good-hearted and kind could Robertson's statements have been when he couched the "I prefer vagina" (paraphrased) OPINION with the flat statement that "he loves all" and the World would be better place if we loved one another as God commanded? He also flatly stated he would NEVER treat a gay person with disrespect because that would NOT be loving in a Godly way.

Therefore, I conclude it is you who is intolerant to other points of view. Christians self-censer all the time and we check ourselves to try and NOT offend people. And I take Robertson at his word that he loves equally as Jesus commanded, but you insist on wringing the worst possible interpretation of his words. And you expression that you hope the "gays win" this culture war is truly disappointing. For "their" spokespeople are far worse at flinging insults and forcing their opinions on us.

The difference is that the Duck guys will mind their own business but leftists and gay activists lie and deceive the public in order to gin up support. Note now how they want to force ministers who don't agree with their lifestyle to perform marriages and will NOT "tolerate" florists who disagree either. ALL MUST CONFORM to the gay agenda. But for all the talk of theocracy, Christians are quite happy keeping Church and State very separate.

YoungHegelian said...

My parents lived through WWII. There were Wehrmacht soldiers in Italy who wanted nothing better than to put an 88 armor-piercing round through my father's Sherman tank. My mother, as a 16 yr old French "Girl Scout" helped pull bodies from the rubble after the Allies bombed Marseille in preparation for the landing at Toulon. Both would have been thrilled to have lived through simply "hate speech" rather than high-explosives.

Many of us here are the children of folks who went through such experiences, as were the writers at NatLamp. Remember how they raised us? "Bye, YH. Stay out of trouble & be back for dinner." Our lives were our own, to screw up or to fly right, from a very early age.

It's not just a question of morality or not. It's just that for many of us raised in the 60's & 70's, and used to a much more freewheeling intellectual exchange, the present generation of activists strike us as basically moral cowards, using communal shame as a social weapon rather than argumentation.

Just like the old Baptist biddies used to do to me & my friends growing up in Alabama.

sunsong said...

This was written by the Salt Lake County District Attorney, Sam Gill, on the first full day that gays could marry in Utah:


Today

Today I saw a mother holding her child's hand in anticipation of inching closer to the front of the line trying not to betray the emotion swelling up in her.

Today I saw an elderly couple holding hands while one summoned the physical strength attached to an oxygen tank and her partner tended to her with hopeful affection as they waited in line.

Today I saw two young people asleep in a long meandering line dreaming about the end of the rainbow just three hundred yards away.

Today I saw a group of friends huddled together in support of their friends who never believed such a day was possible for them.

Today I saw families with a certain hopeful pride. I saw parents come to support their children, siblings come to support their brothers and sisters, children come to support their parents and proclaim both of them for the first time openly.

Today I saw the ordinary, unexceptional, average, normal people in love.

Today I saw professionals, blue collar, white collar, teachers, engineers, domestics, clerks, salaried, hourly wage earners, artists, unemployed, entrepreneurs, students and retired people using their civil rights.

Today I saw young and old, flamboyant and reserved, smiling and tired, hopeful and hoping, white, black, Asian, female, male, tattooed, conservative, outstandingly dressed, liberal, religious, loud, gleeful, quiet, thin, rotund, jubilant diversity of humanity standing in line to claim the dignity they always possessed but were denied by a human obstruction of fear, hate and purposed misunderstanding.

Today I saw compassion of strangers, kindness of parents, joy of friends, love of partners, generosity of volunteers, the relentless work of civil servants, the focus of the committed, tenacity of the deprived, courage of the silent, presence of the hidden and the voice of the quiet and the roar of the demur.

Today I saw the world, witnessed the humanity, observed the dignity, appreciated the commitment, was humbled by the love that was driving this moment.

Today I saw people happy, people hopeful, people proud, people exercising their rights.

Today I just saw LOVE. Today I saw the value of marriage as an institution, the importance of it, the value of it, the honor of it, the mystery of it, the emotion of it, the culture of it, the sanctity of it, the reverence of it, the unutterable necessity of it to complete the fullness of life.

Today I saw America's past touched by America's future. Today I saw history.

Today was a good day. Tomorrow will be a good day too.

-- Sam Gill

SGT Ted said...

I think consenting adults can do what they like with their junk and say what they like without being subject to pitchforks and torches and mob rule from a tiny minority that doesn't really respect civil liberties.

Althouse shows that she doesn't really respect civil liberties; she is actually advocating that some should be subject to being culled out of polite society, based on the currently popular notions of social morality, and the tools to do that are the pressure of the mob and economic sanctions from same.

Which is also how the Communists were economically punished with the Hollywood Blacklist by Sen. McCarthy. Which we were told was a Great Evil by the left for suppressing their speech and free association rights.

Which is what the gay community fought to be free from in the first place.

It's the double standard. Over and over.

Trashhauler said...

"But some people really are afraid of gay people. They feel threatened by gay sex."

Really? Just how many people with such an affliction are we talking about? How can they be identified, aside from making possibly unwarranted assumptions based on their conversation? Is there any scientific study on this?

I ask because I don't think I've ever heard someone state they were literally fearful of what type of sex other people were having.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Jesus didn't accept humanity and in fact Jesus came to change us. He succeeded.

He didn't change the Germans much, as the "decent" people of German culture not too long ago helped murder millions of their neighbors, with women getting away with it because of their sex. This is where German "decency" get you: Genocide.

Tolerant Jesus would have accepted everything as it was and never showed up to give His life for us.

Also, from now on treat Southerners with more tolerance for their having to fight back against Northern bigotry, especially in University, whom talk down the South and its culture.

gerry said...

Althouse espouses speech censorship so select persons may be spared self-reflection. To what may one compare the morality of one's behavior, when popular culture has made immorality its inverse? Better to live one's life as a shallow pit, eh, than to strive for true goodness?

From today's Catholic Lectionary, Mt 10:17-22 (feast of St. Stephen, the first martyr):
Jesus said to his disciples:
“Beware of men, for they will hand you over to courts
and scourge you in their synagogues,
and you will be led before governors and kings for my sake
as a witness before them and the pagans.
When they hand you over,
do not worry about how you are to speak
or what you are to say.
You will be given at that moment what you are to say.
For it will not be you who speak
but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
Brother will hand over brother to death,
and the father his child;
children will rise up against parents and have them put to death.
You will be hated by all because of my name,
but whoever endures to the end will be saved.”

SGT Ted said...

And really, Professor.

"Homophobe" is a bullshit word of hatred.

Like "fag" or any other slur.

Mike said...

I believe, Trashhauler, that the number is sufficiently small so that we can say with statistical accuracy: Nobody is homophobic.

It is a stupid term formed out of gay bigotry and used now out of laziness and a tendency to not think too deeply about how "the other half" actually hold their beliefs and act on them. That Althouse tosses off the term "homophobe" like she did here is truly disappointing and intellectually ignorant.

Trashhauler said...

Shouting Thomas, I do not like your rude comments about the host.

I'm not saying you cannot say them, but I am saying they make me grit my teeth.

Terry said...

Person A: Remember George?

Person B: You mean the guy who showed up for work last week wearing a dress? And insisted that we call him "Georgette"? What about him?

Person A: He jumped off a bridge and killed himself last night.

Person B: What!? If only there had been some clue, some hint, that he was not mentally stable!!

Shouting Thomas said...

Shouting Thomas, I do not like your rude comments about the host.

I apologize for soundly trouncing Althouse's foolish embrace of every silly propaganda trick she could call upon.

rhhardin said...

If we could reduce social pressure we could generate lift.

William said...

Yesterday, on TCM, I watched part of The Robe. (And you think your Christmas sucked.). The Emperor Caligula was presented as fey, smug,and evil. Instead of a baton, he wielded a peacock feather. It was an extremely hateful depiction of a gay man. But that was yesterday's stereotype. Hollywood has advanced, and, instead of hateful stereotypes, now gives us enlightened, life enhancing stereotypes.

rhhardin said...

I'm waiting for the news story of people returning gifts in the Holy Land.

The stories never seem to meet.

Freeman Hunt said...

"It's not just a question of morality or not. It's just that for many of us raised in the 60's & 70's, and used to a much more freewheeling intellectual exchange, the present generation of activists strike us as basically moral cowards, using communal shame as a social weapon rather than argumentation.

"Just like the old Baptist biddies used to do to me & my friends growing up in Alabama."

This, though I grew up in the 80's and 90's. I don't see how the progressive PCists today are any different than the worst, most stereotypical "church ladies." How odd to see them shun each other and mock each other and revile each other. They are the same. Exactly the same.

Trashhauler said...

"...soundly trouncing Althouse's foolish embrace of every silly propaganda trick...."

Yes, I understand, ST. But I spent entirely too much of my life being nasty to people and their ideas at every opportunity. And I now regret every single time I ever "won" an argument that way. Makes my teeth hurt to see it.

Carl said...

My impression is that, like many intellectuals of the time, Shirer was secretly sympathetic to aspects of the Nazi worldview. Not the business about launching war against his beloved Paris, but the rejection of Edwardian notions of class privilege, economic and cultural populism, centralized socialist planning, and the rejection of interwar effete cultural degeneracy with its replacement by vigorous calisthenics, outdoor hikes, short haircuts, early bedtimes, and plenty of vigorous procreative sex.

We don't live in those times right now, of course. We're more comparable to the late 20s, with its dominance of the live 'n' let live anything goes so long as you don't do it in the street values of the wizards of Wall Street leverage circa 1928. But as then, there is now a substantial backcurrent of hostility to what our cultural aristoi celebrate with (historically ignorant) glad cries of inevitability.

We shall see how it works out.

tim in vermont said...

It is pretty obvious that all sides in this conversation about what Phil Robertson said have a need to twist the words of the other side to maximize their dudgeon. This is a classic dialog of the deaf.

David53 said...

It's readable in the culture now that you are fated to lose if you stay ugly (as Robertson did). You need to show some love and acceptance. Oddly enough, that would be more Jesus-like.

"Stay ugly" is an interesting choice of words to describe Phil's behavior.

Ugly:

offensive to the sight

offensive or unpleasant to any sense

morally offensive or objectionable

likely to cause inconvenience or discomfort

surly, quarrelsome.

Are you saying Phil's behavior is morally offensive or objectionable?

William said...

In The Robe, the relation between the Roman Centurion and his Greek slave, Demetrius, was extremely homoerotic. They didn't mince or act effete, but it was clear that they loved each other in the kind of brave, manly way that Ernst Roem would approve of. That's the kind of movie I grew up watching. If I'm confused about homosexuality, blame Hollywood.......I gave up on the movie. Hollywood's take on homosexual morality hasn't necessarily improved, but the sword fights (I'm not speaking metaphorically) have definitely improved. The sword fights in the movie were clumsy and rehearsed, and there was no arterial bleeding. A sword fight without arterial bleeding is like an egg without salt.

carrie said...

People have ignored a lot of the things that the gays and liberals have done to change social norms. PBS kids' shows like Arthur, Sesame Street, etc. began including gay families and other liberal agenda items in their programs in the early to mid 2000s, so young adults have been subjected to the gay/liberal normalization agenda most of their lives, and in many cases without their parents knowing it. Parent don't realize that things that they take for granted are not being taught or discussed in the schools or portrayed in TV/Movies and that parents need to take it upon themselves to discuss the other sides of these issues with their kids (i.e., the religious or conservative side). Unfortunately, most Christian denominations respect other religions and belief systems--love thy neighbor as thyself--and assume that that respect will be returned to them so they don't speak up. But the respect is not returned. Instead, Christians just stand by and let themselves be trampled. One example of this is the exclusion of the Boy Scouts (a religious organization) from United Way campaigns. The first few years that the Boy Scouts were excluded I would turn in my United Way pledge card at work with a zero contribution and a note saying that I was unwilling to support the United Way because it was no longer a common fund raising organization but was, instead, an organization that had a social agenda. The United Way even got an Eagle Scout to call me and try to convince me that the exclusion of the Boy Scouts because it subscribed to a religious view of sexual conduct did not mean that the United Way had a social agenda, etc. Stuff like that just keeps adding up and our kids see it adding up unchecked, so how can something not end up being normalized when that happens. The social norm now is that Christians can be seen but not heard. Soon it will be that Christians who believe in the traditional Christian view of sexual conduct cannot even be seen-there will be total repression.

carrie said...

People have ignored a lot of the things that the gays and liberals have done to change social norms. PBS kids' shows like Arthur, Sesame Street, etc. began including gay families and other liberal agenda items in their programs in the early to mid 2000s, so young adults have been subjected to the gay/liberal normalization agenda most of their lives, and in many cases without their parents knowing it. Parent don't realize that things that they take for granted are not being taught or discussed in the schools or portrayed in TV/Movies and that parents need to take it upon themselves to discuss the other sides of these issues with their kids (i.e., the religious or conservative side). Unfortunately, most Christian denominations respect other religions and belief systems--love thy neighbor as thyself--and assume that that respect will be returned to them so they don't speak up. But the respect is not returned. Instead, Christians just stand by and let themselves be trampled. One example of this is the exclusion of the Boy Scouts (a religious organization) from United Way campaigns. The first few years that the Boy Scouts were excluded I would turn in my United Way pledge card at work with a zero contribution and a note saying that I was unwilling to support the United Way because it was no longer a common fund raising organization but was, instead, an organization that had a social agenda. The United Way even got an Eagle Scout to call me and try to convince me that the exclusion of the Boy Scouts because it subscribed to a religious view of sexual conduct did not mean that the United Way had a social agenda, etc. Stuff like that just keeps adding up and our kids see it adding up unchecked, so how can something not end up being normalized when that happens. The social norm now is that Christians can be seen but not heard. Soon it will be that Christians who believe in the traditional Christian view of sexual conduct cannot even be seen-there will be total repression.

Michael said...

Professor. I dont know and have never known anyone afraid of gays. Absent controversies created by the gay activists very few people who do not have gay relatives give one milisecond of thought to gays. That appears to be much of the problem, doesnt it?

We are getting worn out with lobbing all this attention. What would we end up with as a society if we surrendered and gave the LGBT group every single thing they wanted. Could they put it on a piece of paper? A ream of paper? And if we agreed as a nation, as a community of men and women, that OK you can have it. All of it. Would they by any chance, any stretch of the imagination shut the fuck up?

William said...

The Nazis are usually depicted as persecutors of the gays, which, of course, they were. But the facts are that gays of a certain stripe, such as Roem, were attracted to Nazism. Nowadays, Hollywood has no problem depicting gays as noble victims, but the fact remains that many were ignoble oppressors.

tim in vermont said...

I stopped giving to the United Way when it became clear that they were taking on the role of political "advocacy," their own term from their advertisements.

Why should I give money to somebody who will use it to advocate against my political interests.

Clyde said...

@ virgil Xenophon

Not to be a nitpicker, but as someone who lives in Lee Co., FL, I can tell you that Cape Coral is on the Gulf Coast and Pompano Beach is on the East coast north of Fort Lauderdale, about 150 miles away on the other side of the state. Definitely not the same market! :-)

Shouting Thomas said...

Yes, I understand, ST. But I spent entirely too much of my life being nasty to people and their ideas at every opportunity. And I now regret every single time I ever "won" an argument that way. Makes my teeth hurt to see it.

You might be mistaking my motivation, or the likely result.

My bet. Althouse (and Meade) become lifelong friends and a fans of the Old Dawgz, as she discovers what I am really about.

CWJ said...

sunsong,

I'm having trouble finding the letter you quoted.

But assuming you cut and pasted the text including the "signature," I would have also assumed Sim Gill would have spelled has own name correctly.

Freeman Hunt said...

The better part of the Powerline post:

"Indeed, I would go one step further. Gay activists, once perhaps sympathetic civil rights advocates, are now a nasty, destructive force that aggressively threatens freedom of speech and religion. Accordingly, they are among the last groups we should want Steyn to treat more gently than is his custom.

"Steyn is therefore correct to say that Steorts “does not grasp the stakes” in the Duck Dynasty dispute. The stakes consist of preserving a liberal society, in the classical sense. For, as Steyn grasps, “a society where lives are ruined over an aside because some identity-group don decides it must be so is ugly and profoundly illiberal.”"

Carl said...

I guess I also have to wonder at those who look at extremely rapid social change and rate its permanence as high. I guess these are the same people who look at the Dow shooting up 20% in a day and buy eagerly, expecting that Dow 36,000 is right around the corner.

Apparently quite a lot of people don't get reversion to the mean, and that the faster a change, the more likely it is to be followed by significant change the other way. That's just the universal behaviour of complex systems.

tim in vermont said...

If we, as a society, have been successfully maneuvered into a place where sides must be chosen, as Althouse implies, I choose freedom of speech as a cultural value, in addition to its status as a restraint on the state, and with that in mind, I firmly reject what GLAAD is trying to do and I reject the attempt to bully me into agreeing with the absurd conclusion that the redefinition of marriage is of no more import to society as a whole than whether somebody chooses to celebrate Christmas.

The whole trope of "it's not what you say but how you say it" is laughable in the face of the kind of invidious twisting of words that passes for intellectual discourse in this country.

somefeller said...

It's amazing how so many supposedly tough, no-nonsense dudes get the vapors whenever the topic of The Gays comes up, complete with the little delusions about how they are fighting for Freedom, dammit, while resisting the awesome, overwhelming power of groups like GLAAD. I won't name names, because it might make some thin-skinned people cry.

But anyway, life goes on and Internet hits are always a good thing.

sunsong said...

the gay agenda

tim in vermont said...

Then somefeller comes along with his own invidious interpretation of the comments on this thread, as if to prove the point.

EDH said...

Nobody's addressed the link between fascism and homosexuality raised by Shirer.

Is it the uniforms?

Is it the sexual perversion?

Is it the "strong-arm squads" silencing their enemies?

And don't get me started on homosexuality in Nazi Germany.

Theranter said...

Thank you Sgt. Ted.: " SGT Ted said...

"And really, Professor. "Homophobe" is a bullshit word of hatred. Like "fag" or any other slur."

Exactly. Whomever is making the "homophobe" accusation is not only being hateful, they are trying to do something I abhor even more--shut you up.

The other aspect is that anger -- "That fuck you anger feeling as you are thinking " you don't even know me, so don't fucking tell me what I am"

LOTS of non-kool aid drinking homosexual people are staunch defenders of our 1st Amendment. It's the constant bullying and messaging by the left media and their paid trolls (all usually white hetero males) that continue to fan the flames of hatred, with a few radical, selfish homosexual's that have not grown up (and likely never will) as their poster children.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Sunsong, you mean well, but the number of persons who are going to watch a twenty minute Ted talk entitled 'The Myth of the Gay Agenda' and change their thinking as a result is exactly zero.

I mean, you might as well direct an atheist to a copy of 'The Case for Christ.' All he's gonna do is pat you on the head for your naivety in assuming that he hasn't heard it all before and thought it was bullshit the first time.

B said...

Michael said...if we agreed as a nation, as a community of men and women, that OK you can have it. All of it.

We can't do that. We can't begin to even contemplate doing that. Let me give you one example. I would not be surprised if it has already happened under the radar but will explode onto the MSM pages when the time is 'right'.

Gays have traditionally been denied the right to adopt because of the impetus that adoption agencies put on placing kids into what has always been considered nuclear families. No different than the difficulty that single adults face have traditionally faced when trying to do the same but that won't matter.

What we'll be told in the upcoming dialogue will be that the gay community was/is being discriminated against and because they now have stable marriages they will be further discriminated against if a dual gender family is considered a better fit as adoptive parents. And - here's where surrendering the field now will matter later - because SS partners are biologically incapable of having children together (leaving surrogates or artificial means aside). they should get priority over dual sex marriages that haven't definitively proven they are incapable of having children. Low sperm count or a history of miscarriages does not definitively mean a hetero couple cannot have biological children in the way that being a SSM does by the way.

And judges will rule that even religion affiliated adoption agencies must comply in giving SSM's preferential treatment in the adoption process.

So there's one hypothetical but very, very, plausible outcome of letting GLAAD control the dialogue completely.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Is this why they replaced biology with sexual education? Are people so incapable of learning and moderating their own thoughts? Are the incapable of distinguishing between individuals and behaviors? The Left rose to power on exactly this premise. How soon they have forgotten. The progressive morality being taught in our schools and popular culture is a threat to humanity dignity, society, and humanity.

I still think the homosexual cause is a front which provides cover for dysfunctional heterosexuals. There is an objective basis to not normalize homosexual behavior, and a similar, limited basis to tolerate it. There is an objective basis to reject dysfunctional heterosexual behaviors, most notably elective abortion or state-sponsored murder by the millions every year.

The emotional appeals used by minority causes is designed to avoid addressing issues on their merits. The Democrats have trained "leaders" to exploit their constituents with great effect.

Oh, well. Go along to get along, I guess. The moral high ground of these advocates and activists is a fiction narrated throughout our society.

Inga said...

Shouting Thomas, do you seriously think that your bullying and harrasment of Althouse will help you get your point across effectively? You make yourself appear so loathsome, even folks who might want agree with you (your fellow homophobes)may reject your vitriolics and ignore whatever you have to say.

The liberals are looking more Christ like every day we discuss this Robertson issue. You folks are starting to sound worse than GLAAD.

CWJ said...

sunsong,

I can't find the Sim Gill letter you cut and pasted above. What was your source please?

That he's called Sam rather than Sim doesn't seem to argue authenticity.

Anglelyne said...

Carl: I guess I also have to wonder at those who look at extremely rapid social change and rate its permanence as high. I guess these are the same people who look at the Dow shooting up 20% in a day and buy eagerly, expecting that Dow 36,000 is right around the corner.

Apparently quite a lot of people don't get reversion to the mean, and that the faster a change, the more likely it is to be followed by significant change the other way. That's just the universal behaviour of complex systems.


Very good analogy. I don't think change is going to "go back the other way" in any simple, predictable way, but what's being missed here is just what you say - it's a complex system with a lot more players and variables than the simple model of society Althouse presumes here.

Paco Wové said...

"The liberals are looking more Christ like every day"

My, isn't Inga feeling modest today!

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...


Ann Althouse said...

"Prohibiting" is clearly the wrong world. We're talking about social pressure. People are learning how they will be thought of depending on what they say and how they say it.

If you say something like what Robertson did, people may think you are a lout and not want to be around you. If you're insensitive enough, you might not even notice.


So, paraphrase a non GLAAD approved quote from the Holy Bible and face shunning because it's time we let go of that old time religious mumbo jumbo?

Let everyone know if your blog makes it to the other side of the shark.

Wade Calvert said...

"It's not so much the normalization of homosexuality that he's talking about but the de-normalization of the belief that homosexual conduct is wrong."

That's why neither side is getting anywhere. The goals are different. We are very close to the normalization of homosexuality and would succeed if many Christians would do a better job of loving the sinner while disavowing the sin. Or to put this another way, love your gay brothers and sisters first, and keep your condemnations to yourself. That doesn't mean you have to applaud or celebrate homosexual behavior. Just keep your mouth shut. Is that too much to ask? This should be the goal for Christians to strive for in the realm of public discourse (my opinion only).

On the other hand, many outspoken Gays (especially the special interest groups) have a different goal. They will settle for nothing less than forcing Christians to publicly or openly repudiate the Bible. Even politely mentioning (when asked) the biblical versus that associate homosexual behavior with sin should call for your immediate and unmitigated destruction. The goal of changing peoples opinion through force cannot be achieved. And they will continue to face resistance so long as they try to.

Alex said...

Why do you keep linking to this Steyn bigot? Also he has one of the worst radio voices I've ever heard.

Trashhauler said...

sunsong,

No careful social group these days has an agenda. But they all have memes, ready to be trotted out at need. No central orders required, but everybody knows how to play it.

Deniability is an essential part of any passive-aggressive stance. "I'm not trying to change you - I'm only trying to make you see it from my perspective." Over and over and over, until failure to accept that perspective is nothing more than bigotry.

Gahrie said...

It's not dehumanizing at all to refer to the irrational fears that plague the mind.

1)So all opposition to homosexuality is by definition irrational?

2)It is oK to dehumanize someone if they think the wrong way?

Alex said...

I'm not too sympathetic to the homophobes — the mild and the virulent — if when they had the cultural upper hand they squelched the people who are now out to de-normalize them. Turnabout is fair play, and karma is a bitch.

Isn't it though? Karma is the ultimate bitch and it will fuck you 10 ways to Sunday and then that's just for starters.

damikesc said...

I'll say that this has actually started me turning away from "gay rights".

I never had an issue with gay marriage if passed by vote (passed by judicial fiat is bullshit, of course).

But if my choices are "gay rights" or "unfettered speech", then I will pick the side of free speech and oppose gay rights quite fervently.

Groups like GLAAD aren't seeking equality. They are seeking dominance. I'm not having that.

I've been told for years to pick battles worth having. This is one extremely worth having.

Phil's statement, love it or hate it, was the DEFINITION of tolerance. Gay sex is a sin and he doesn't like it --- but he is not going to be mean or mistreat anybody because God is the judge, not Phil Robertson.

If gays cannot handle that, then honestly, screw the lot of them. They won't be getting the applause they seek for detailing, ad nauseum, their rather unattractive and tedious sex lives.

Why is Phil Robertson persona non grata but Dan Fucking Savage is on college campuses? Why are gays who bemoan the "breeders" not ostracized?

Like it or not, homosexuality is profoundly abnormal (far less than 10% of the populace) and has literally zero utility in a purely biological world. It doesn't produce offspring.

Illuninati said...

Althouse said:
"Turnabout is fair play, and karma is a bitch. But free speech is a higher value, and the greater benefit to all of us lies in keeping the conversation rolling."

The problem with that argument is that many of the people the homosexuals are attacking are not the people who wronged them in the first place. For example, Perez Hilton launched a vicious attack on Carrie Prejean because she expressed her belief in traditional marriage. That is not karma (whatever that is) it is simply a vicious attack against an innocent young person. The fact that leftists tolerated that behavior from Perez Hilton and rewarded it shows just how depraved our culture has become.

Alex said...

I don't like this kind of cultural aggression.

Get used to it. It's the way things have always been. Ninnies better take cover.

YoungHegelian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
damikesc said...

We are very close to the normalization of homosexuality and would succeed if many Christians would do a better job of loving the sinner while disavowing the sin. Or to put this another way, love your gay brothers and sisters first, and keep your condemnations to yourself.

Two of my best friends are a lesbian couple and the wife and I brought them to our church and they happily joined.

I don't hate gay people one iota. I don't even care about gay sex.

Gay activists can all die in a fire.

Michael K said...

"I still think the homosexual cause is a front which provides cover for dysfunctional heterosexuals."

There are plenty of dysfunctional homosexuals. I have repaired the anus of a number of them. A visit to a gay pride day in San Francisco will give you the picture.

I don't care what they do in private so long as I don't have to listen to them brag about it.

Lonetown said...

"I'm not too sympathetic to the homophobes "

The term homophobe was an invention to de-normalize.

Do you think anyone who opposes homosexuality is a homophobe? You're using the term wrong.

Gahrie said...

If those who adhere to the traditional belief can't figure out how to seem friendly and good-hearted about it — as Pope Francis, by the way, seems to be trying to do — then you will find it excluded from the realm of the decent.

1) What the hell happened to your "civility bullshit" idea?

2) How friendly and good hearted are the assholes on the Left?

You will lose.

In the short run, almost certainly yes. It's hard to fight against popular culture, popular media and governmental institutions at the same time.

It's readable in the culture now that you are fated to lose if you stay ugly (as Robertson did). You need to show some love and acceptance. Oddly enough, that would be more Jesus-like.

Why does everyone ignore the idea of hate the sin but love the sinner. I believe Robertson even explicitly stated this.

Gays and the Left have decided that acceptance is not ennough...you must celebrate and endorse what was once perversion.

Alex said...

Ann - you can talk about love & acceptance. But everyone knows who's been a hater the last 10 years. There will be no forgiving or forgetting. Revenge will be ongoing.

virgil xenophon said...

@Clyde/

IIRC circa 2000 a Pompano station re-broadcast and/or simulcasted the program. It was also simulcasted on a New Orleans station for a period of time..

Alex said...

Yeah that's to you fundies. Yeah life for you guys is gonna be like a fucking HELL on earth. Having to tolerate and accept all these gay people getting MARRIED... OVER AND OVER AGAIN. HAHAHAHAHHAHA

UP YOUR FUNDIE BASTARDS!!!!!
UP YOUR FUNDIE BASTARDS!!!!!
UP YOUR FUNDIE BASTARDS!!!!!
UP YOUR FUNDIE BASTARDS!!!!!

YoungHegelian said...

@Carl,

Apparently quite a lot of people don't get reversion to the mean, and that the faster a change, the more likely it is to be followed by significant change the other way.

Well, clearly the Jacobins didn't expect the "reversion to the mean" of the Thermidorian Reaction.

It never ceases to amaze me how folks who will make fun of Christians & their "End of Days" beliefs believe just as strongly in their own way that the direction of history goes along the axis of what they deem "progress".

Paco Wové said...

You will lose

We will bury you!

(Althouse bangs Birkenstocks on podium)

Alex said...

The way the fundies are acting like now, it's like the last thrashings of Uncle Ned as he's expiring. Railing at the world, while the rest of the bright young people are building a better society.

Chef Mojo said...

Sat, silence does not equal concession. It often means not engaging with rude, boorish assholes.

In case you missed the memo, you're being a rude, boorish asshole. So much so that I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire, let alone respond to your "demands" for answers.

virgil xenophon said...

I also said on another thread, but bears repeating, that the Masthead of the UK blog "Harry's Place" says it all:

"Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear."

Alex said...

The beautiful thing is by 2050, all the bigots will be dead and everyone will look back in amazement that there were generations that hated gay people.

CWJ said...

Wade Calvert,

Just saying.

Its kind of hard to follow the advice of your paragraph 2 in the face of the topic of your paragraph 3.

sunsong said...

CWJ,

You will have to scroll and scroll and scroll until you find it - December 24th

facebook

damikesc said...

Also, a lot of Nazis were into pedophilia. To not call them perverts would be pathetic.

Chef Mojo said...

My above comment was addressed to ST, not Sat.

Alex said...

Ah I see the latest pathetic attempt to equate gay people with real perverts. That is backfiring big time with millennials and most of Gen X(myself included). We look at any such attempts with utter disgust and contempt.

Revenant said...

Mentioning the joke as an example of what used to be acceptable was fine. The vague nostalgia for those days was a bit off-putting. The actually *obnoxious* bit was the closing line, where Steyn repeats the joke to make an ostensibly serious point.

I normally like Steyn, but his drama queen routine on this issue is getting old. He really needs to drop the "blah blah they'll have to fire me to shut me up" routine, especially since Steorts has already pointed out that he neither wants to fire Steyn nor has any authority to do so.

virgil xenophon said...

Or I could add a masthead in roughly the same vein carried on the award winning Eastern Illinois Univ "Eastern Daily News": " Tell the truth and don't be afraid!"

(PS: IIRC EIU is one of only two college newspapers in the US that does its own printing)

Alex said...

The hilarious part to me is that as normalization continues the fundie Christians will lash out even more, causing normal people to hate Christians ever more and causing a feedback loop that will ultimately lead to the complete demolition of fundamentalist Christianity in America by 2020.

Mark my words.

CWJ said...

sunsong,

Yep, found it.

Revenant said...

Was Steorts overruled by NRO's publisher? That would explain how the supposedly offending text saw the light of day.

There was nothing to overrule. Steorts simply criticized Steyn's article, and Steyn blew up over the criticism. It was still published as-is.

Illuninati said...

My understanding is that the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality is not directed against adults who voluntarily have sex in privacy.

The Bible tells us some of the reasons why homosexuality was condemned. It was practiced openly and exploitatively often in conjunction with heterosexual sex. According to the stories, in some cities, like Sodom, the men would gather in crowds and gang rape other men or women. In Roman and Greek culture many men took young boys as lovers. As our culture becomes paganized that practice will undoubtedly return. Already NAMBLA is busy preparing the culture for its return.
http://www.nambla.org/
Another source of exploitation by ancient homosexuals were male slaves. The preferred male partner was a male eunuch who never developed secondary male sex characteristics. In Constantinople these eunuchs were called the third sex.

Those who champion the destruction of our traditional culture need to reflect carefully on what will take its place.

Gahrie said...

The hilarious part to me is that as normalization continues the fundie Christians will lash out even more, causing normal people

Careful here...sounds a little de-humanizing to some ears

to hate Christians ever more

Yep...there is hate involved, and it is not comming from the Christians

and causing a feedback loop that will ultimately lead to the complete demolition of fundamentalist Christianity in America by 2020.

One should be careful what they wish for. If there ever is an open conflict between Christians and secularists, don't be too sure on what side will win. An awful lot of former, current and potential soldiers are devout.

Inga said...

Exactly Alex. Excellent observation.

tim in vermont said...

Of course with gays let off the hook for procreative sex through the normalization. if there is any heritable aspect of homosexuality, to 2100, gays will be a lot rarer as well.

Inga, please just ignore him. Taking him down is way too easy and beneath you.

SGT Ted said...

It was a decent adult conversation until the lefties and resident moby showed up to call everybody homophobes for daring to stand up for unpopular speech.

I bet Phil has some gay customers. Are they homophobes too?

Gahrie said...

Steorts simply criticized Steyn's article, and Steyn blew up over the criticism.

if the article was offensive and beyond the pale, Steorts had the obligation not to print it.

If the article was fit to print, Steorts had the obligation to shut up or support his writer.

YoungHegelian said...

@Alex,

The hilarious part to me is that as normalization continues the fundie Christians will lash out even more, causing normal people to hate Christians ever more and causing a feedback loop that will ultimately lead to the complete demolition of fundamentalist Christianity in America by 2020

Yeah, Alex, sure. Do you have any idea how long folks have been predicting the end of this or that sect or all of Christianity?

Let's talk demographic trends here for a minute. America's becoming less white. Does it strike you that brown people are more supportive of gay rights than white people? Do you just no follow the news out of the 3rd world (e.g Africa) on their views on gay rights?

All the white people who have stopped having babies & are dying out love gay rights. The brown ones with the babies, not so much. And the faith of those brown people, Christian or whatever? As charismatic & evangelical as any bunch of snake handlers in a WV holler.

You need to look outside your little social bubble every now & then.

Leit Bart said...

We should also ask who is doing the hating? And, who is fueling revulsion and "otherness"?

Consider this Obamacare ad marketing insurance to gay men. Why is there no outrage?

http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/18/if-you-think-pajama-boy-looks-effeminate

tim in vermont said...

YH,
YOu are wasting your breath, he is in the midst of a triumphalist orgasm.

virgil xenophon said...

To my fellow Barbancourt-loving compatriot Chef Mojo:

Yes, ST can be off-putting, but the cant and hypocrisy demonstrated by AA on this subject--as people like one of my hero's Anglelyne has pointed out here and many times previously on this subject--is simply breathtaking in its overarching dimensions. The facile assumptions people like AA and the LBGT movement make about being on the "right side of history" remind me of nothing so much as the assumptions Marxists/Communists made about "scientific materialism" conclusively proving that "the long train of history" was on their side.

Illuninati said...

Alex said...
"The hilarious part to me is that as normalization continues the fundie Christians will lash out even more,"

Lefties love to project their own behavior onto other people. It appears the lefties are the ones doing the "lashing out", for example, Perez Hilton was clearly the aggressor against Carrie Prejean.

Lydia said...

Wade Calvert said...
They will settle for nothing less than forcing Christians to publicly or openly repudiate the Bible. Even politely mentioning (when asked) the biblical versus that associate homosexual behavior with sin should call for your immediate and unmitigated destruction.

And not just Bible verses, they will demand that the Catholic Church stop teaching what it teaches in its Catechism, even if taught in what Althouse calls Pope Francis's "friendly and good-hearted" way:

“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”
--From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the section on chastity and homosexuality

Alex said...

Funny sounded to me like Phil Robertson was lashing out against gay people in that GQ interview. He could have said "no comment" but chose to express his hateful feelings.

Alex said...

Guess what - fundie America agrees with Duck Dynasty's views on gay people! 100% in lockstep and everyone knows it!

tim in vermont said...

What does "lashing out" mean, exactly, Alex, and do you have a quote to support your definition?

Alex said...

Inga - we will never agree on economics, but on this we can.

SGT Ted said...

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a fundamentalist Christian.

I hope I am safe to voice my opinion out loud now without fear from what crazies like Alex might do to my career.

Alex said...

tim - read above. All you need to do is scratch any random Evangelical and they will spew their venomous bile against gay people.

Dr Weevil said...

Poor Alex hasn't figured out that the only one here expressing phobic hatred and loathing of a whole class of people is himself. He should seek professional help, though it's hard to say whether a psychiatrist or an exorcist is what he needs most.

Revenant said...

2) How friendly and good hearted are the assholes on the Left?

About as friendly and good-hearted as the anti-gay crowd was when it was the majority of American culture. Look at how many anti-gay assholes rushed to lock in state Constitutional bans on gay marriage when it looked like 51% pro-gay majorities were imminent.

Well, the "gays = bad" crowd is a minority now. Aside from a handful of libertarians and other human rights die-hards, nobody particularly gives a shit when people with unpopular opinions are denied a voice *unless* they are able to empathize with those people somehow.

Put simply, majorities don't need to be polite.

tim in vermont said...

So we are all in "lockstep" now?

Now you are just getting pathetic.

Alex said...

Oh I most definitely would fire someone if they expressed bigoted views about anyone(race, creed, sexual orientation). bigotry has no place in the workplace, in the public square or even in your own thoughts.

tim in vermont said...

Yeesh, Alex, Generalize much? Otherize much?

Alex said...

Just to be fair, I think Dan Savage is an anti-hetero bigot and he has no place in the public square either. He should be shunned equally by GLAAD.

Revenant said...

if the article was offensive and beyond the pale, Steorts had the obligation not to print it. If the article was fit to print, Steorts had the obligation to shut up or support his writer.

That's a pretty retarded idea there, G. The whole point of the Corner blog is that the people who write there had different opinions.

If they all had the same opinion, who but the most mentally numb of doctrinaire Republicans would bother to read NR?



tim in vermont said...

Now Phil is guilty of thought crime. He didn't even have to say anything, a known Bible believer, his guilt is manifest.

These are the kind of people I want running the country. The kind who believe in "thought crimes."

Alex, you are as far over the top as Shouting Thomas.

Ann Althouse said...

"You've been doing this a lot in the past year or so, and almost always in regards to comments you make about homosexuality. It's as though you can't conceive that your readers would disagree with your take if they only understood it. "

No, it's as though I believe that people are able to understand a position that they don't agree with. But in fact I do know that emotion introduces static that impairs reading skill. I'm not going to write on a lower level however and I'm not going to stop writing things that provoke people. I do what I do and I really don't expect to persuade anyone. I do have a hope of creating a common ground where people can talk to each other.

Illuninati said...

Alex said...
"Oh I most definitely would fire someone if they expressed bigoted views about anyone(race, creed, sexual orientation). bigotry has no place in the workplace, in the public square or even in your own thoughts."

I'm curious what Alex means by the word bigotry and why he thinks "bigotry" is wrong?

tim in vermont said...

The word "bigotry" means precisely what Alex wants it to mean, precisely at the time he says it.

So don't get any ideas of being able to defend yourself in one of Alex's "thought crime" trials.

Paco Wové said...

Tim-
Alex has been around these comments a lot longer than Shouting T.
And Alex has always, always, always been the crudest sort of troll imaginable.

Oso Negro said...

Well, Alex. You're fired.

Illuninati said...

Althouse said:
" I do what I do and I really don't expect to persuade anyone. I do have a hope of creating a common ground where people can talk to each other."

Hear. Hear.

Dr Weevil said...

Alex "definitely would fire someone if they expressed bigoted views about anyone" and includes "creed" as one of the categories. I hope he's not self-employed, because he'll have to fire himself for his own gross and ignorant bigotry about the "fundie" creed.

He also claims to think that "bigotry has no place in the workplace, in the public square or even in your own thoughts". Time for a lobotomy? Or maybe Alex should try listening to the arguments here and giving up his own gross and blatantly hypocritical bigotry.

SGT Ted said...

Funny sounded to me like Phil Robertson was lashing out against gay people in that GQ interview.

I heard what he said on the tape. There was no lashing out in his commentary whatsoever. But, that fiction has to be maintained so people like Alex have an excuse to vent their hatred of people different than they are.

There are of course, hateful people that call themselves Christians, and they display the same sort of hatred towards gays as Alex does towards them. They are two sides of the same coin. It's just a return to tribalism, over individual liberties.

But Phil is nowhere near that sort of religious bigot. He knows he has no right to treat them badly. He understands we have a right to be peaceably different, even the sinners. he is very American in that regard.

He could have said "no comment" but chose to express his hateful feelings.

IOW, Phil should just shut his mouth and keep his head down, if he knows what's good for him, right?

Is that what passed for libertarians these days? They've gotten slack it would seem.

Alex said...

Oh come on paco. Surely Titus has that title down pat by now.

SGT Ted said...

Oh. Alex is a totalitarian.

That explains a lot. Especially the hatred of difference in thought. Or reasoned dissent.

Inga said...

The end of true libertarianism will be when they do a mind meld with the religious right and it's happening right before our eyes.

Gahrie said...

I do have a hope of creating a common ground where people can talk to each other.

Then perhaps one should find a new term than homophobe.

I'm not scared of homosexuals. I think homosexuals should be allowed to live openly as committed and loving couples.

I just don't think homosexuals and other lefties should be allowed to destroy Western civilization.

Illuninati said...

Inga said...
"The end of true libertarianism will be when they do a mind meld with the religious right and it's happening right before our eyes."

I love that expression -- mind meld. I'm not sure what it means but it certainly is an interesting expression.

n.n said...

Michael K:

Objectively, homosexual behavior is dysfunctional, male homosexual behavior more so. I was actually referring to their heterosexual patrons who use the homosexual cause and other minority causes as a distraction. The Democrats are infamous for exploiting minority causes in order to avoid discussing issues on their merits and as leverage to advance their political, fiscal, and social standing.

Michael said...

Ann Althouse. "No, it's as though I believe that people are able to understand a position that they don't agree with"

I believe many, most, do. I believe also that progressives are less and less capable of this feat. Observe those on the left who comment here.

The test of a first rate intelligence, wrote Fitzgerald, is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

garage mahal said...

Hell, I have a gay friend!

Inga said...

"I just don't think homosexuals and other lefties should be allowed to destroy Western civilization."

12/26/13, 2:59 PM

I just don't think homophobes and righties should be allowed to take us back to 1950.

John said...

the English say that we should never speak of rope in the house of a hanged man.

However, when the proprietress of the house not only brings it up but rubs our noses in it, I think it is OK.

A lot of people hear have said things that I might have. Especially Shouting Thomas.

I don't give a damn what Ann's son or other homosexuals do. I believe that consenting adults have the right to do with their bodies as they will.

Ann objects to the fruit cordial joke. Fair enough, it was not very funny even back in the 60s. Offensive? Perhaps the term fruit is a bit offensive. So what? It Ann is getting hysterical (and I use that word knowing its meaning) over it and I don't see why she is making such a big deal over it.

I think that if homosexuals do not like being called fruits, they should grow a thicker skin and not be such hothouse flowers.

As for the Bob Hope joke "They legalized homosexuality in California, I had to leave before they made it mandatory." I notice she doesn't talk much about this, does she?

Perhaps because it is too close to the truth. It is not enough that we be accepting of homosexuals and homosexual sex, we have to embrace and celebrate it.

We are seeing in our public schools over recent years exercises where groups of students are made, black, Jewish, Muslim or whatever for the day. Or a day is decreed in which blue eyed kids can be discriminated against. All in the name of showing the evil of discrimination.

I expect soon, and am surprised it has not happened by now, that kids will be made to be "gay for a day".

All with the best of intentions.

John Henry

DanTheMan said...

Alex is Shouting Thomas's evil twin...
Or perhaps it's the other way around.

Equally articulate, though.

Ann Althouse said...

"Professor, you seem to have a hard time with basic Christian theology - the idea that one can and must both love the sinner and hate the sin…"

And: "Your continued obtuseness about the Duck GQ affair leads me to believe you still didn't actually read what Phil Robertson said in the article. How much more good-hearted and kind could Robertson's statements have been when he couched the "I prefer vagina" (paraphrased) OPINION with the flat statement that "he loves all" and the World would be better place if we loved one another as God commanded? He also flatly stated he would NEVER treat a gay person with disrespect because that would NOT be loving in a Godly way."

I think if you go back and read my other posts on the subject, you'll will see that these criticisms aren't really apt. Time and again, I've been careful about the sinner/sin distinctions and as for the level of ugliness, I have given Robertson his due. His apology statement did indeed stress loving everyone, and I put a lot of effort, in my first post about this dispute, into giving Robertson credit for switching to talking about himself (to say he doesn't see the attraction of anal sex), but there's also a degree of ugliness in the way he presented it, which was to denigrate the sexual feelings other people. I think that is becoming unacceptable in polite society.

Click on my "Duck Dynasty" tag to see all that I've written on this. My first post on the topic is on Dec. 18th when I said, in part:

"Of course, Robertson is getting criticism for these remarks, which are called "anti-gay," but he's rejecting all of what is traditionally understood in the Christian religion as sin, including adultery and fornication. In the process, he talks about his own natural sexual orientation and seems perhaps to concede that it's easy for him to avoid one sin that he knows other people feel drawn toward. But overall, his effort is to call people into traditional religion and to save them from what he believes is sin. Myself, I support gay rights, but I do not like the simple portrayal of traditional religionists as mean or bigoted (even though I do understand that it may be the most effective way to defeat them politically)."

Dr Weevil said...

garage mahal is so proud of having one gay friend, he included a picture of said friend to prove it.

Inga said...

Here you go n.n.

Mind meld

John said...

Ann,

You are wrong about people being kicked out of the military for believing in gay rights. Can you name me a single person who was kicked out for this in the past 100 years or so?

Nobody has even been kicked out for being homosexual, as far as I know.

A lot of people have been kicked out for engaging in homosexual sex.

None, AFAIK, for believing that it should be OK.

As in Christianity, it is the act that is forbidden, not the tendency.

John Henry

SGT Ted said...

Alex, you are as far over the top as Shouting Thomas.

I think even ST respects civil liberties more than Alex does.

Titus has the "King of the Ewwwwws" title, though. (hey that's the best Christmas joke I could come up with)

His offensiveness is always usually sexually and scatologically related.

Alex said...

Inga - well there ya are. I offer an olive branch and you pock it in my eye. You know very well that Libertarians are pro gay rights.

Michael said...

Inga. 1950 was the glorious time of the mythical leftie middle class with the workers and factories and all the super jobs.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 279   Newer› Newest»