And what about Bugs Bunny’s carrots: Freudian?

And what about Bugs Bunny’s carrots: Freudian?

busterfarm.gif: Josh Marshall’s reader found the lost episode of Buster the Bunny’s lesbian adventure. Says Buster’s blog:

While there, we visited Emma, David, and James, who live with their two moms, Karen and Gillian. Karen and my mom used to work at the same newspaper together.

Yup, that’ll make the next generation gay.

: Meanwhile, the United Church of Christ proves that not all churchgoers are humorless, bigoted prigs. They issue a press release welcoming Sponge Bob and all his nefarious cartoon buddies to their pews:

Joining the animated fray, the United Church of Christ today (Jan. 24) said that Jesus’ message of extravagant welcome extends to all, including SpongeBob Squarepants – the cartoon character that has come under fire for allegedly holding hands with a starfish.

“Absolutely, the UCC extends an unequivocal welcome to SpongeBob,” the Rev. John H. Thomas, the UCC’s general minister and president, said, only partly in jest. “Jesus didn’t turn people away. Neither do we.”

spongebobchurch.jpgFor that matter, Thomas explained, the 1.3-million-member church, if given the opportunity, would warmly receive Barney, Big Bird, Tinky-Winky, Clifford the Big Red Dog or, for that matter, any who have experienced the Christian message as a harsh word of judgment rather than Jesus’ offering of grace.

The UCC’s welcome comes in the wake of laughable accusations by James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, that the popular SpongeBob and other well-known cartoon characters are crossing “a moral line” by stressing tolerance in a national We Are Family Foundation-sponsored video that will be distributed to U.S. schools on March 11, 2005.

Later, an assistant to Dobson called SpongeBob’s participation in the video “insidious.”

Thomas said, on the contrary, it is Dobson who is crossing the moral line for sending the mistaken message that Christians do not value tolerance and diversity as important religious values.

“While Dobson’s silly accusation makes headlines, it’s also one more concrete example of how religion is misused over and over to promote intolerance over inclusion,” Thomas said. “This is why we believe it is so important that the UCC speak the Gospel in an accent not often heard in our culture, because far too many experience the cross only as judgment, never as embrace.”

Dobson, despite his often-outrageous viewpoints, is arguably one of the most oft-heard religious voices in popular culture today. Through his Focus on the Family media empire, Dobson produces daily commentaries that appear widely on television and radio stations across the United States, often times as “public service announcements.”

Meanwhile, the UCC’s recently released 30-second paid television commercial – produced to underscore the denomination’s belief that Jesus didn’t turn anyone away – has been rejected by two major television networks for being “too controversial.”

Amen. Let’s hear it again: Amen!

: LATER: What’s so extraordinarily distasteful about all this is the idea that merely exposing a child to a person who is homosexual is somehow offensive or wrong. How intolerant. How bigoted. How unChristian. How unAmerican. How many first stones they’re throwing, these fools.

: See also Andrew Sullivan.

  • anon

    Ask yourselves: why are these tactics succeding now in ways they did not even during the Reagan years?

  • http://blogs.rny.com/sbw/ sbw

    Succeeding? In what ways do you presume they are succeeding?
    I suppose, if you are happy just to be noticed, that is a kind of success. Some people confuse notoriety with success.

  • http://www.cadence90.com/wp/ Lisa Williams

    Not only is it stupid, it’s also unoriginal — Jerry Falwell did the same thing by accusing the Teletubbies’ Tinky Winky of being gay.
    I believe that these kinds of things are publicity stunts on the part of bible thumpers, pure and simple. I don’t think they actually believe SpongeBob is gay, but it plays into their audience’s bigotry, gets them attention, and, of course, gets them to keep giving money.
    Once one of them gets attention for saying something outrageous, another one of them will copy it. Pat Robertson wanted publicity, so he said that the 95 Florida hurricanes were God’s way of getting back at Floridians for letting gay people have their own day at Disneyland; so of course, some other crackpot preacher claims something very similar about the tsunami.
    They don’t even believe it. They’re just crass opportunists.

  • Joe

    Lisa,
    I don’t know if the bigwigs (Fallwell, Dobson, etc.) believe it or not. I do know that the people who donate money to them and respond on this blog in defense of their attacks on cartoons really are “true believers” who – for some unknown reason – are so aghast at the mere presence of gay people, that they are truly trying to keep that presence out of the world of their lives and their children’s lives, as if an entire population of people just don’t have any right to appear in public. It’s stunning, really, but I don’t think it’s all about money. There is some deep-seeded hatred and bigotry involved.
    Bully for Jeff for continuing to point out the intolerance in this perverted form of Christianity that I certainly didn’t learn in Catholic school.

  • Joe

    By the way, Jeff – this PBS bunny flap is on the front page of USAToday’s life section today, where they noted that the Education Secretary’s letter to PBS occurred on her SECOND day on the job. I’m so glad to learn that the education system in this country is running so well that she was able to solve any actual problems on her first day and could use her second to focus on PBS cartoons.

  • http://www.cadence90.com/wp/ Lisa Williams

    anon: This is why I think fundamentalist movements are growing in the US: the middle class is shrinking, and there’s an increasing number of desperate people who have unstable jobs with no benefits *cough*WalMart*cough*. During the brief period of middle class expansion in the US (1945-1973), these movements waned.
    People need something to believe in; there’s nothing to believe in in working hard and getting ahead anymore; the last safety net is God.
    These people get taken advantage of by crass, self-seeking, self aggrandizing bigots who tell them that their problems are caused by minority groups, and that their leader will fight these minority groups who are “taking over” on their behalf, if they just donate more money.

  • Evan

    Christ does not call us to tolerance – he calls us to holiness. The elevation of tolerance of sin by the UCC is just as wrong as the legalism practiced by many televangelists.
    Both sides seem to miss the lesson of John 8 and the adulterous woman:
    The legalists miss the fact that Christ chastised them by saying ‘If any of you are without sin, let him caste the first stone’.
    The tolerance pushers miss the fact that Christ told the women to ‘Go, and sin no more.’

  • daudder

    Jeff, what is so distasteful is these people do not want the homo’s to exist at all. They want them rounded up and killed, as they are sinners, and God wants it so. It’s right there in the Bible.
    These people are kooks. They have a little power and instead of exercising it in good and benevolent ways, they are picking on the less powerful to demonstarte the proof of their power.
    It makes you wonder what these people would do to the original settlers and founders of America who were (in part) escaping such persecution and tyranny. Oh the irony.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Daudder. Evidence about the rounding up and killing, please.
    BTW. At City Journal is an article by Theodore Dalrymple.
    The individual in question lived a liberal’s wet dream of life.
    She’s the murderess in “The Murderess’ Tale.”
    Nothing in their that JJ and company could possibly object to.

  • http://narciblog.home.mindspring.com/blog.html Eric

    Evan: The tolerance pushers miss the fact that Christ told the women to ‘Go, and sin no more.’

    What ultraconservative Christians miss is the fact that, after healing what was most likely the gay lover of a Roman soldier, Jesus did not say the same.

  • daudder

    Richard: a bit of hyberbole, but the nmurders of Harvey Milk, Matthew Sheppard, and thousands of yearly gay-bashings would seem to indicate a severe and irrational level of hatred.

  • Joe

    Evan/Eric: The other point that Evan is missing is that it is Christ that is doing the judging of sin of the adulterous woman, and that in the same passage he is strictly chastising humans who are judging her. The “tolerance pushers” wouldn’t have to push tolerance if the ultraconservative Christians weren’t so openly willing to judge gay lives. Whether or not gay actions are sins are not for us humans to judge at all.

  • http://www.oddharmonic.org/ Melissa

    While waiting for the images included in this post to load, my imagination ran wild imagining “Buster the Bunny’s lesbian adventure”. What threw me was the capitalized Bunny; Buster Baxter is the bunny in Arthur and Postcards from Buster, Buster Bunny is from Tiny Toon Adventures.

  • Richard Aubrey

    daudder. There are plenty of assaults for reasons other than gay-bashing, even if the vic is gay.
    But you were referring to named leaders of conservative Christian organizations.
    Did you read Andrew Sullivan’s scorching reproach to society over the murder of Jesse Dirkhising?
    No, you didn’t.
    In that case, the perps were gay.
    Nothing to see here.
    Sullivan compares it to Shepherd’s murder and the wallowing in mass guilt.
    Point is, some deaths are politically useful–Shepherd–and some–Dirkhising–are not.
    Your confusion is the belief that nobody has figured this out.

  • Evan

    Joe – that was part of my point, but I would disagree with several things you said.
    First off, the use of the label ‘ultraconservative’. I still believe that words have meaning and shouldn’t be thrown around loosely, until they lose their meaning. ‘Ultra’ means highly extreme. I hardly think that the Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin is ‘ultra’ anything. Every mainstream Christian denomination believes this, and has believed it for the past 2000 years, with the apparent exception of the small UCC in the past 30 years or so.
    The belief that only modern Christians in the past 30 years have discovered Jesus’ ‘true teachings’ and become enlightened on matters of sexuality and adultery, strikes me as arrogant, unsubstantiated, and in direct contrast to explicit teaching in the Bible.
    I would agree that Christians should be careful about judging people, but it is nihilism, not Christianity, to make no statements or judgments about sin. A church that makes no judgments about sin is not a church, it is a social club.
    As the great GK Chesterton wrote, “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.”

  • Joe

    Evan – You’re right that churches are going to have to make judgments about sin. I guess I overstated my point above. Whether or not they should be actively judging homosexuality (and whether that judgment is based in the Bible or in Jesus’ teachings or is anywhere near 2000 years old) is up for debate that is inappropriate here. I meant to just emphasize what you did in your statement: “I would agree that Christians should be careful about judging people”, and that includes many outspoken Christian leaders who I referred to as ultraconservatives only because that was the nicest term I could think of.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Joe, what does “judge” mean in your context?
    If a person is committing an act, and we say he is an act-committer, are we judging him?
    If he is committing what our religion calls a sin, is he a sinner?
    Does it matter that we are sinners when we point out that somebody else is a sinner?
    If the issue is reducing the amount of sinning, then pointing out a sin might be useful.
    Now, for this discussion, what a particular religion calls a “sin” is irrelevant.
    Can a person make the literal and objective observation that another is committing a sin?
    Christians believe in original sin, which means we’re all sinners, even if, as children, we haven’t actually committed any. That doesn’t mean that a really, really good guy is morally equivalent to a serial rapist.
    Can one point out that another is committing a sin without “judging”?
    The Bible says “judge not lest ye be judged”. So if we’re willing to be judged, does that not free us to judge others?
    I am not asking for answers, but pointing out that the facile suggestion that judgment is wrong for one reason or another could run into some complications.
    Especially when “judge” is torqued into meaning noticing.

  • Carrick Talmadge

    Perhaps I won’t go as far as Jeff does in condemning people in general for expressing short-sided and uninformed viewpoints, like in the case with James Dobson. Nonetheless, arguing that children should not be exposed to the concept of same-sex parental figures is myopic at best.
    Even in the middle of red country, we have same-sex couples who have children which they raise themselves. My kids go over and play with their kids occasionally, and neither my kids nor I think anything about it. My biggest worry, when my kids go over, is that my kids will break something or leave a mess, typically parental concerns…
    So I’m really trying to figure out what Dobson’s goal is in making his statement, other than giving his followers a banner to rally behind. Kids get exposed to things in our more open society these days than they did in the 100-years-ago world that Dobson and his people would apparently like to live in.
    My biggest personal bitch about Dobson and his ilk is that they make suuch a big splash in the press with their ignorant remarks, that it ends up unfairly staining the reputations of all Christians in the process.

  • Joe

    Richard – I’m just saying that if I were you I would err on the side of not judging complete strangers based on a single character trait that may or may not be a sin in the eyes of God, regardless of what your church or some evangelist is telling you.
    And if your interpretation of the Bible leads you to believe that being gay is a sin, then are you just skipping the parts about not casting stones and loving your neighbor? Why are these religious leaders’ hatred of this one “sin” so strong that they are willingly ignoring Jesus’ teachings about casting stones and judging others? And what exactly is gained – besides filling their coffers, as Cedrick points out – other than promoting intolerance to Cedrick’s neighbors – and I think, hurting the image of all Christians.

  • daudder

    Richard, not to get off topic, but the 20/20 story on the alternative explanation for the Matthew Sheppard murder, that it was drug related, not gay hatred cited (and supported by Andrew Sullivan) has been thouroughly debunked.

  • http://www.godsowndrunk.blogspot.com Richard

    Good point Joe, and I would add this question to the mix- Why are evangelicals so obsessed with the “sin” of being gay? Why is this ONE part of the bible so important to these people?

  • Angelos

    Evan, are you really just Kat using a new pseudonym?

  • jeremy in NYC

    Richard – good point. I mean, can you imagine if there was a Jewish group complaining every time somebody was shown on TV eating pork, or going out on Saturday?

  • worrywart

    Angelos,
    I’ve long since concluded that Kat is secretly a left-wing shill that is posing as a nutjob just to show us how nutty nutt nutt some people are. There are far more articulate conservatives, and Kat’s foaming at the mouth just rings a little too untrue. Kat–you’ve been outted, time to move on. I used to think Kat and Elieen were the same person, but recently Elieen’s one-note spiel about the gays being overrepresented leads me to believe that she’s not as smart as Kat and is therefore not the same person. Evan on the other hand, seems to be just misinformed.
    Evan, it’s not true that homosexuality has been condemned by Christians for 2000 years. Homosexuality as a concept is only a little more than 130 years old. The authors of the Bible wouldn’t recognize a modern homosexual if one bit them on the ass, so to speak. So, to claim that the Bible condemns consensual, adult, loving same-sex relationships is patently ludicrous. There’s a web site that attempts to look at the Biblical texts from both a conservative and more liberal perspective:
    http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm#men
    The King James translation of the Bible (about 500 or so years ago) is what really seems to have sparked off the whole condemnation of same-sex sexual activity (notice I say “activity” instead of actual homosexuals). It’s unclear that the original Greek texts have the same condemnation and therefore it would be incorrect to assume that Christians before that feel the way you do about it.
    While it may seem contrary to your beliefs and what you’ve been taught, if you’re actually concerned about getting your condemnations correct, you should look into the historical context as well as the potential mistranslations of the original texts before you start looking for big stones to cast.

  • worrywart

    This I say to Kat and Evan:
    Luke 6:41-42 (New International Version)
    New International Version (NIV)
    41

  • kat

    Karl, you truly are a stark raving lunatic–I mentioned NAMBLA once because it is a group of homosexuals who are the only self-identified group in the world to openly advocate pedophilia, and who openly advocate influencing young kids. When kids are older than Sponge Bob age, I actually believe they should be taught about the gay lifestyle and about this sick group of scum who prey on kiddies. If Sponge Bob is going to be used, let’s have him teach about the fact that the gay lifestyle can be deadly and dangerous. Let’s not show fluffy little frills and neglect some of the not so fluffy stuff like the fact that kids should know that homosexuals are 90% more likely to contract Aids, that the lifespan of homosexuals is much shorter than straights, etc. I think you owe the truth to future homosexuals instead of selling them a false bill of goods. Quit lying to kids. It may be an alternative lifestyle and it should be acknowledged–homosexuality is not as user friendly as Mr. Bunny would like us to believe.
    Kids deserve the truth, when they are old enough to know what sexual identity means.
    To be truthful, I don’t get too bothered by a pic of two women–when my kids were younger I’d go to the park with my kids and my sister, and I certainly have no lesbian tendencies,so I see that as silly . I don’t object to the Sponge Bob video–just the accompanying teacher guide and pledge, and then only because it is inappropriate for the age of the children that are targetted and I think kids can make a pledge to be tolerant of all others without an accompanying lesson in homosexuality.
    Have a pill, Karl. It may help your delusions.
    WW–I don’t even know what the H you are ranting about, so how can I reply? And I have a job and don’t spend all day here like you do.

  • Jon H

    Evan writes: “I hardly think that the Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin is ‘ultra’ anything.”
    It is ‘ultra’ when these “Christians” place homosexuality as a great, pernicious, evil, while ignoring the eating of shellfish, which the Bible says is just as bad.
    It is ‘ultra’ when they spend more time seeking to repress gay people rather than working against divorce. (Jesus, after all, was big against divorce. Didn’t say anything about gays.)
    It’s ultra when these “Christians” spread lies about gay people, describing them as pedophiles. Lying ranked up there in the 10 commandments, did it not? No mention of gay folks in there.
    Basically, it’s “ultra” when “Christians” are going by their own personal hatred and bigotry, which is out of all proportion to the importance of homosexuality in the Bible.

  • jeremy in NYC

    Actually, Kat, in other places you pop up, you do seem to have a fixation on conflating homosexuality and pedophilia.
    That’s your prerogative, I suppose, but I think most people recognize that (a) they’re not the same thing and (b) there are a lot of heterosexual child molesters.
    Also, you call Karl a “stark raving lunatic” and then spend several paragraphs ranting at him – but, uh…..there’s no comment from Karl in this thread. I think you’re talking to something and someone that isn’t there. So I would kinda be more thoughtful in who you call a “stark raving lunatic.”

  • Kat

    There are pedophiles on both sides of the fence–we just see ours as criminals. If homosexuals want my respect, I expect them to denounce NAMBLA as a bunch of perverted criminals, instead of writing about them favorably in gay rags.

  • Kat

    You are right, I replied to the wrong thread. I was confused being addressed in a thread I had not even posted in, and being accused of using a word over and over, when it was once.
    Then I was Eileen, which I consider a huge compliment, then I was Evan, also a compliment, and then I was a leftwing shill. And then I was confused. And I don’t even remember conversing with worrywart.

  • http://narciblog.home.mindspring.com/blog.html Eric

    OK, kat. Speaking on behalf of the entire gay community:

    NAMBLA is a bunch of perverted criminals

    But seriously, that’s like judging white people because of the KKK. Do you require Catholics to denouce the behavior of their Church in the recent scandals, too?

    I don’t know what gay rags you’ve been reading, kat, but I’ve rarely (if ever) come across a NAMBLA reference, and never a favorable one.

  • Kat

    Yes, I expect the Church to denounce the pedo priests–I sure as hell do. And I denounce the KKK as do most decent people.
    Would you like me me to send you at least a dozen references to articles? I could,.
    And I’m happy to give you my utmost respect for speaking on behalf of the gay community:):).

  • ss

    I see Jeremy using Jewishness as a stand-in for homosexuality again.
    The difference is in the aggressive prostletizing for mainstream acceptability, the in-your-face “deviant” sexuality, the extreme intolerance for those who decline to accept that sodomy is simply another beautiful manifestation of God’s gift of carnal pleasure to the world. And I’m mildly pissed off that they pretty much ruined pink triangles and rainbows for everybody else.
    (I can see Jeremy’s sarcasm and bigot-detection machine getting all warmed-up already.)
    Alright, [breathe] it’s certainly wrong for anybody to be hated or rejected based on their sexuality. It’s a different thing, however, to insist that the physical act of sodomy and the existence of loving, homosexual “families” be accepted into the mainstream.
    Jeff would be right to say that it is bigoted and wrong and unchristian to find homosexual people offensive. The gripe, however, is with the express or implied demands for the complete legitimization of the homosexual lifestyle, which has been the object of moral repudiation for centuries. (I hope we can agree on a distinction between a homosexual person and a homosexual act. They do not inherently coexist.) True bigots exist, but rejection of the homosexual lifestyle as a component of a healthy society does not a bigot make.
    The mere fact that an act has been scorned and its practitioners shamed and marginalized is not reason enough to overturn others’ moral conviction regarding the morality of the underlying act.
    And the mere fact that biology drives homosexuality is not sufficient to warrant social approval of homosexual conduct. Pedophilia, after all, is similarly biologically driven. Of course, pedophila and homosexuality differ in the existence or non-existence of a victim. But can it be true that any act without a victim must be not merely tolerated, but morally vindicated?!
    I understand that Gay Pride is an effort to “come out” from the shadow of shame that falls on people whose biology tells them one thing, while societal and moral teachings tell them another. It must be excruciatingly difficult. But how much more difficult to abstain from homosexuality than from pedophilia? Why is abstention from pedophilia simply a person’s cross to bear, while abstention from homosexuality is an intolerably cruel prison from which one must be freed?
    On the other hand (excluding true bigots who just hate gay people for being alive), are good, moral people who resent being separated from their timeless convictions of Godly virtue by hecklers and self-righteous, self-appointed moralists. They are people concerned about the moral health of the society they raise their children in. Homosexuality would not be a major concern in their lives if it were not made a pervasive matter by the ubiquitous iconoclasts seeking to force moral and social change. When pushed on the matter, these good people react with protests and state constitutional amendments.
    Perhaps religious people are in the wrong here– simply because they should no longer hope to raise their children in an environment respectful of their traditional morals in a media-saturated, democratic society engaged in an inevitable race to the bottom.
    Regardless–the issue is not as morally clear as most of us, including Jeff, wish to think.

  • jeremy in NYC

    ss:
    Since it’s causing you such grief, I’ll hold off on the sarcasm for 2 seconds.
    If you look closely at the comment above, I’m not using Judaism as a stand-in for homosexuality; I’m using it as a stand-in for Christianity. As in “If Christians can complain about TV showing things they find religiously offensive (like homosexuals) on TV, why shouldn’t Jews complain about things THEY find offensive (like pork, or breaking the Sabbath) on TV.” Get it now? OK – so answer it.
    As for the rest – first, I’m getting sick of the pedophilia argument. Let’s say this in all caps now: As you note, pedophilia is wrong because it INVOLVES (AND HARMS) CHILDREN SEXUALLY, AND CHILDREN ARE TOO YOUNG AND INNOCENT TO CONSENT TO SEXUAL ACTIVITY, AND HOMOSEXUALITY HAS NO VICTIM. So couldja stop with the inflammatory comparisons? For me, the better comparison is interracial marriage. For a long time it was condemned as wrong, sinful, prohibited by the bible, you name it.
    If you want to believe homosexuality is wrong, great. I disagree with you. But it’s your business how you want to raise your children, and I respect that. But you sit there complaining that there is a cartoon that disagrees with your beliefs. Know what? “A Charlie Brown CHristmas” disgrees with MY beliefs. But I’m not sitting here yapping about the outrage of having a children’s show pushing Christianity. I think both the world and children can take exposure to other concepts without losing their values, and frankly, I think people should focus on teaching and guiding their children (including their TV habits), and not on trying to control what everybody else watches.
    Thus concludes my non-sarcastic response.

  • Mike

    viously, we must protect the children from those “Godless Hamasexuhuls”. One can obviously see the detrimental effects of the constant exposure to Rep. David Drier amongst the children of California’s 26th district. Over 3/4 of two year to five year old children in that district alone responded with the answer of “Gubh?” when asked of their sexual orientation. Obviously these are some very sexually confused kids, which one can only ascribe to either their elected officials, Mr. Drier being the most prominent amongst them. (Full disclosure: the other 1/4 of children polled answered “THBBPPPPTTT!” when asked of their sexual orientation.)
    In conclusion, how absolutely disgusting is PBS seeking to be? They show a family of lesbians ramming sharp objects into “hard wood” trees until sticky fluid comes out! Why must PBS bow to the lesbian agenda of seeking to destroy all Male genatalia with sharp objects?

  • tim wg

    I see nothing wrong with Dobson’s comments. They are mainstream Christian as far as I’m concerns. The reaction to it is just ridiculous.
    On the other hand, Falwell did say dumb things about the Teletubies, but Falwell has a track record of misspeaking.
    Dobson has always been careful about his message. People are not giving him credit for what he actually said.
    I’m completely upset about using cartoon images to promote a homosexual lifestyle via the tolerance message to children who shouldn’t be exposed to these messages at such an early age.

  • ss

    I guess jeremy comes in two flavors: dick and sarcastic dick. Well, there’s some self-righteous, condescending dick in there too.
    So– moral distinctions between matters of human sexuality and matters of kosher dining? Let’s try. Both have much to do with societal health. The importance of food laws are lessened by modern sanitation and the abundance of food. Though, even in times of scarcity I think these laws are pretty mundane and largely counter-intuitive, enforced primarily by authority figures looking out for the spiritual and physical health of believers. Nobody gets real emotionally riled up about food laws.
    Sexuality, on the other hand, is a visceral, emotional topic. People have feelings and opinions on matters of sex that run to their very core. Knowing the strength of these emotions, it’s easy to see how raw sexual emotions and sexual conduct could create social havoc. But because furtherance of the species is an inborn-instinct, most sex morals are not counter-intuitive.
    We have instincts that favor monogomy, for instance. Other natural emotions include physical revulvion by the prospect of sex with a person’s mother or child or sibling, or yes, a member of the same sex. Societal morals largely follow human instincts. “Homophobia” will NEVER be extinguished because, like revulsion of pedophiles, it is a natural human response.
    So, there’s a plug for Darwin in the anti-gay debate.
    By putting your “sick and tired” argument in caps you didn’t succeed in refuting the parallels of homosexuality and pedophilia. You just argue what I concede: there’s no victim. Fantastic. Where’s the moral argument there? People are free from sin if they don’t hurt anyone? Sounds like a fun party, but it doesn’t sound like the moral base for a very strong society.
    Yours is a moral code that answers to no authority apart from the amorphous maxim, “Play nice.” In fact, it expressly rejects the notion of authority, given that any demand (from a parent or boss or officer) can be righteously refused by pointing out that nobody is being hurt. A code that places judgment on nothing but the infliction of “hurt” generates a society only of victims and oppressors. There are no guiding principals of honorable living that can call both the lowly and the mighty to task. “Justice” under such a code is hypocritical because when the lowly act to defend themselves, they become the oppressors. Your value code, while well-intentioned, creates a victim society, a society of retribution and hypocricy.
    I think here is the heart of the disagreement, perhaps. The issue is bigger than the narrow matter of homosexuality. The reason I, as one with traditional Christian values, feel no sympathy and have no respect for your secular humanist values is that I believe your moral code is inferior as it pertains to the maintenance of a healthy society. Get it?

  • Eileen

    I believe ‘furtherance of the species’ is the fundamental issue, for it transcends religious tenets, secular mores and moral codes of all kinds. I know many homosexuals are moral, religious and/or spiritual and certainly don’t consider themselves to be sinners. Conversely, many heterosexuals may not accept homosexuality as a ‘normal’ lifestyle, but it is not based on religious precepts at all.
    So then it becomes a matter of addressing what conduct succeeds in furthering the species, regardless of the above factors. I’m sure when female homosexuals procreate via artificial insemination and then raise those offspring, they’re furthering the cause of humankind’s survival. If any gay couple raises adopted children or those from their prior hetero relationships they are doing the same. If a lesbian becomes impregnated by a man for the sole purpose of giving birth she is also doing the same. And if a gay male donates his sperm he is likewise promoting furtherance of the species.
    But will these forms of family units and procreation ever become the standard bearers for continuation of the species? No. Sorry, but no. Consequently, homosexuality will never become the ‘norm’, and society will never accept it as such.
    I think if the gay community promoted an agenda which fosters individuality, human respect and acceptance as opposed to one related to ‘sexual identity’, it would garner tolerance much more readily and rapidly. In other words, the more you try and distinguish yourselves based on sexual identity, the more you succeed in setting yourselves apart.
    Moreover, calling heteros names such as bigot, homophobe, intollerant, unChristian, unAmerican or nutjob ain’t gonna get you there either. Name calling only polarizes and works at cross purposes, particularly in an agenda which seeks tolerance.

  • http://lloannna.blogspot.com Sarah

    One quick thing… why is it bad to not want your child exposed to things you don’t want them to do? Why is it bad to tell other people who you think agree with you (and seeing as how they’ve paid for you to come and speak to them, that’s not a wholly unjustifiable assumption) that there’s a piece of media out there that they’re children might see things or people that those people don’t want their children to emulate? I mean, really, is this an extremist position?
    Breaking it down…
    1. Behavior X is against my moral code.
    2. I have children.
    3. I want my children to follow my moral code.
    4. Person A openly engages in Behavior X.
    5. Exhibit Y is a video where Person A talks about Behavior X and how we should be tolerant of him and his behavior.
    6. There are other persons (B through J) who are famous role models and icons my child knows of and respects, who will also advocate tolerance of Person A and Behavior X in the video labeled Exhibit Y.
    7. Therefore, I don’t want my child to see said video.
    Which part is the extremist, judgemental part of the above? We’re not talking “Therefore, I will attempt to have Person A put in prison” or “Therefore, I will join in a mob which is about to go lynch Person A” or even “I will make an FCC complaint in hopes of getting this video barred from the public airwaves.”
    I am worried about people who want to shield their children from everything in the universe. I am more worried about people who think it’s evil or wrong to protect one’s children from anything at all.
    And, if someone is behaving under the assumption that homosexual behavior is a serious sin on the order of fornication or adultery, I don’t think it’s un-American for them to want to keep their children from seeing people who engage in that behavior as role models. It’d be more un-American to to insist they tell their children that such behavior doesn’t matter.

  • worrywart

    I find it odd that the discussion seems to have gone up a notch on the intellectual scale, but still results in the same conclusions on both sides: “Homosexuality is wrong!” … “No it isn’t!”.
    Neither side seems to acknowledge or even care that their points, no matter how intellectually couched can be refuted on both sides. The Bible (in its original text) does not clearly state that homosexuality is wrong (homosexuality existed in Biblical times, but wasn’t a recognized concept). Nature also does not prove that homosexuality is wrong, there are a variety of species that engage in homosexual activity, some even closely resembling committed, monogamous relationships. So, there is evidence that homosexuality serves a distinct purpose in the natural world and in our society.
    Conversely, it is true that homosexuality has been condemned for quite some time in Western civilization. And societal norms are not quick to change.
    The point is, just as it’s not wrong to condemn homosexuality, it’s equally not wrong to expect that homosexuality will be portrayed in art/tv/news etc. Whether you agree with one side or the other, it behooves you to at least examine the other side’s evidence and acknowledge that the “truth” isn’t quite as true as you believe it is.

  • jeremy in NYC

    SS: First of all, I applaud your effort to enforce decency standards while throwing around the word “dick.” Bra-vo.
    I’m glad you can so blithely write off other people’s religious beliefs as outdated and irrelevant. It allows me, if I choose to do so, to treat yours the same way. But to observant Jews, the laws of Kashrut (and the commandment to keep the Sabbath) are very important, and my question still stands: should TV be tailored so that nothing children might see would offend any religious beliefs? Or is it just your religious beliefs worthy of protection?
    As for instincts – let’s put it like this: If human instincts are as you claim they are, and society follows those instincts, then what exactly are you worried about? How is having 2 female bunnies shown as the parents going to topple our instinct-based society?
    As for the homosexualty/pedophilia red herring – good lord. So in your mind, anything that is a “sin” can be conflated with another sin, no matter how disparate, because both break down society? Fine. You used profanity back there, so, ipso facto, you must be pro-pedophilia.
    As for the rest of your argument – well, you’ve done a fine job of creating a straw man of what my moral system must be. When you’re done arguing with yourself, I’d be happy to tell what my moral system is, and it ain’t what you say it is.

  • http://submandave.blogspot.com submandave

    One thing I’ve notice in this kerfuffle (if that’s how you spell it) is the alacrity with which people philosophically opposed to Dobbson are willing to unquestioningly accept what others philosophically opposed to Dobbson say Dobbson said. I’ve got a somewhat libertarian stand-off opinion on the whole matter (there’s nothing inherently wrong in either being gay nor in expressing the opinion that there is something wrong with it), and from my dispassionate position Dobbson’s main point seems to be that he believes teaching young children (elementary school aged) about “sexual orientation” and its meanings is something that should be within a parent’s purview without having state interference. And I kind-of agree.
    I once read on the web a recommended sylabus on sexuality published by a very large and “respected” education association that included discussions of masturbation and “feeling good” with five year-olds. I have a six year-old and would be extremely upset if her school adopted this curriculum, as I don’t think this level of sexual discussion is something she is ready to understand. Likewise, while it is easy for young children to understand that people look differently and that it is wrong to make judgements based upon physical appearances, explaining to them tolerence concerning a person’s actions they can’t possibly comprehend does not make sense. As such, it seems more akin to a religious indoctrination (don’t worry about what it means, just learn it and believe) than actual teaching.

  • http://submandave.blogspot.com submandave

    Re the Arthur episode, the sharp stick hits the eye for many when the tax dollar geos into PBS’ pocket. The exact same program can be on Nicklodeon and generate the same contraversy, but in that case the market will respond to the majority. PBS, by its intended design, does not have to respond to market forces beyond government control of funding.
    Again, I don’t see the big deal. Like Sarah said, some folks say “I don’t want my kid to see X” and asks the program to not be shown. Contrary to the popular left, this is not censorship as the government is not directly involved in the decission nor is there any restriction to presenting the material in other ways. I believe the video and book sales of the Arthus series rivals Blue’s Clues (Steve, of course, not Joe the pretender to the throne).

  • Joe

    ss – I’m surprised by the coherence of your argument and I’d like to respond. You seem to accept that homosexuality is biologically driven, and denounce people who hate gays for just being gay, which means you are much closer to enlightenment on this issue than I imagined. You also acknowledge how “excruciatingly difficult” it would be for a gay person with these biological desires to abstain from acting on them, when taught by society that it is an immoral behavior. Your suggested solution, it appears, is for gays to refrain from any homosexual acts (and to be abstinent for life, basically). And that as a society, we should continue to teach the immorality of homosexuality, for it will advance society’s morals, which is good for the advancement of society.
    That does make sense, except for 1 small point that you didn’t make clear. Why is homosexuality so immoral? And more immoral than eating shellfish? What is it exactly? I’d like to hear your answer – not what you think the Bible is telling you, or what your church taught you, or because society believes it. Our society has believed a lot of things in the past 200 years years (slavery, separate but equal, women unequal to men, no interracial marriage, etc.) that most Americans and Christians in modern times accept as wrong beliefs. What makes this any different? You accept that homosexuality is biologically driven – much like, oh I don’t know, race or gender – so why is it immoral?
    You agree that it’s not hurting anybody. The “furtherance of the species” argument doesn’t much apply, since only a small percentage of people have this biological drive and so the species will be advanced on its own by the 95% of people who are attracted to the opposite sex. Maybe it’s God’s plan to help prevent overpopulation by creating homosexuality. Who knows? But why in the world is it immoral? Your entire argument rests on an accepted tenet of immorality that cannot hold up under any actual scrutiny.
    And instead of taking the benefit of the doubt, your blind acceptance of this belief undeniably leads to bigotry, whether you want to believe you’re a bigot or not. By telling a group of people that they should not do something that is as much a part of their biological makeup as it is yours (having sex) – even though it’s not hurting anybody – well, that’s bigotry. Well I guess if you don’t do anything about it, it’s not actually bigotry, because the definition of bigotry includes intolerance. But protesting a cartoon that simply shows 2 women who happen to be gay is incredibly intolerant, thus bigoted. It is no different than protesting outside a southern school that admitted blacks in the ’50s. Wouldn’t you rather be on the side that was protesting against the protestors? Isn’t that MUCH more Christian?

  • ss

    jer- Sorry if you took offense at my tone. You seem none too gracious yourself.
    I think I pointed out quite clearly why some religious doctrines are more strongly defended than others. Some are intuitively held, others just arbitrary rules. Malem in se versus malem prohibitum. I don’t blithely dismiss food laws, I just explained why Jewish people aren’t up in arms over their wide-spread violation. Likewise, Christians and Jews aren’t up in arms over people coveting each others’ manservant and maidservant. Christians aren’t frothing at the mouth over the failure of mainstream media to properly depict the Trinity. Forget doctrine. We’re talking about innate human recognition of right and wrong.
    Sexual morality may be based in instrincts, but it doesn’t mean that this small voice of conscience can’t be largely overcome by a national marketing campaign. Instinct steers us toward monogomy too, but a person can be raised to believe that polygamy is right. Such teachings will ultimately fail to steer humanity away from revulsion of homosexuals or polygamy, of course, but it could very likely weaken society during my lifetime and warp the natural good sense of my children and grandchildren.
    You really have trouble with this homosexuality/pedophilia idea, eh? Simply disparate sins. Of course, both are based in sexual emotions tied to human instincts governing the propogation of the species. How about if we try another one: incest. Now I’m not talking child sex abuse. Imagine full consent between fathers and their adult daughters to live as man and wife. Genetic problems? No worries–that can be overcome by contraceptives, selective abortions, or they could adopt children and give them a loving home. I bet if we had Father/Daughter Pride parades and raised children to believe that such sexual relationships should be tolerated, instead of sodomy, we’d have incest openly in our midst. I assume this poses no problem for you. No victim, no fuss, no muss.
    If this does bother you, then you must see something different about the nature of homosexuality that makes it acceptable, apart from the fact that it’s real emotional love and there’s no victim. And if you just have a feeling that homosexual love is oh-so-right, you’ve got no claim to moral superiority over those whose feel in their bones that sex with their parents or cousins is right. Further, if you think it’s child abuse to raise children to believe that they could someday marry their parents, well, that sounds a lot like the claim of parents who want to keep their children from learning that gay relationships are legitimate.
    As for whether secular humanism is a straw-man I created? No, I think it’s very real. Whether or not you subscribe to it to its logical conclusion, or whether you put some novel spin on it, creating your own personal moral code, I have no idea and don’t particularly care.

  • Joe

    ss – You haven’t responded to my questions – you seem to be only addressing Jeremy’s. Do you have any answers to mine or are those answers the ones about incest? Because you haven’t at all addressed why homosexuality is immoral. Bringing up incest or pedophilia doesn’t at all address the issue of homosexuality, now does it? If you want to get into a debate about whether or not incest or pedophilia is immoral, then take that to another thread please. This thread is about the education secretary’s protest of a PBS program that portrays two couples who happen to be lesbian. Not mother-daughter, not mother-underaged daughter. Please explain to me and Jeremy why the 2 adult women are being immoral?

  • worrywart

    what ss fails to recognize, mostly because he refuses to, is that he should be comparing a committed monogamous same-sex couple to a committed monogamous different-sex couple. I suppose if he actually tried to make that comparison, he’d find very little difference (especially, since he seems willing to allow procreation in either case). The problem, as I’ve stated, is that by even entertaining the comparison (e.g., allowing cartoon lesbian bunnies on PBS, to bring this back to topic), ss believes we are “weakening society”. If he spent any time at all trying to actually examine what same sex couples are about instead of filling us with his pseudo-intellectual drivel that only supports his theory, he might think differently about it.
    Conversely, if Joe and Jeremy were thinking about the inherient grossness that ss obviously believes is involved in homosexual relationships, they might not bother to try to convince him otherwise. It’s obvious that ss believes he’s on the intellectual high ground, and using actual facts to argue with him won’t really work. Possibly inviting him into your homes to get to know you better so that you can celebrate your similarities instead of arguing over differencs might work, but he seems pretty far gone down his own path to even entertain the idea.

  • worrywart

    and before you say it, ss, I’ll say it for you. You might argue that committed, monagamous homosexual relationships are merely a simularicrum of heretosexual relationships, and they only imitate what nature and God intended. Well, aside from that being a load of bunk, nature and history as well as current reality doesn’t support that theory.

  • Joe

    worrywart – I guess I was just hoping ss had a better explanation for the immorality of it than “it’s just gross” to him. And perhaps I’m not trying to convince him otherwise, but hoping that people reading this who don’t have such extreme views might see the lack of coherence in ss’ arguments, rather than falling for his illogic. You’re right that societal norms are not quick to change, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth the effort to try to change them.

  • ss

    Jeez, joe, keep your pants on. Our posts overlapped, okay? I was only responding to jeremy. And I think this thread is bigger than the bunny post by now. The reason the show is an issue is because it’s part of a larger trend that is seeking, through both overt and subtle means, to legitimize homosexual relationships. Now be warned: I may use analogies in explaining things.
    As I said, apart from pure Biblical authority, homosexuality is immoral because it runs counter to innate sensibilities of right and wrong. That’s why it’s wrong. Because I and the overwhelming majority of humanity now and throughout history find homosexuality morally repugnant. I think malem in se morals (i.e., something is inherently wrong, not just wrong because someone prohibited it) are instinct built up over eons to aid in the thriving of human society. Treading on these morals undermines social order and guarantees moral conflict. But that’s not sufficient to you, is it? So I make analogies to let you see what it feels like to KNOW when something is immoral.
    Is stealing wrong just ’cause there’s a commandment about it? No. And we can agree that certain matters relating to sex, like incest, are wrong. We know this intuitively. We feel it. Does it make sense? Maybe it did at one point in history, but now we could overcome many of those problems with contraception or abortion, right? But with “understanding” and “sensitivity education” and subtle infusion of incestual relationships into popular culture we might be able, temporarily and with great effort, to suppress people’s innate moral sense to immediately reject incest. Yes? Might there be a quiet minority who are biologically turned on by incest and would like to come out of the closet if society were more hospitible? Sure.
    Why accept a moral taboo on incest but not on homosexuality, when both have been more-or-less morally prohibited in essentially all functioning human cultures from the beginning of history? I argue that both are immoral, and that undermining taboos against them goes dangerously counter to humanity’s inborn moral guide.
    To argue that people inclined toward consensual incest are “sick” and just an insignificant minority just raises the question of why are not homosexuals “sick” and just an insignificant minority? Is there a magic minimum percentage or a level of organization that entitles a group engaged in largely reviled activity to enter the moral mainstream? They can try, but that pesky moral sense that it’s wrong will not go away.
    Regarding interracial marriage or racism: Another inborn human instinct is rejection of the “other.” Humans are tribal and tend to disregard, dehumanize, or reject people who aren’t members of their tribe. The entrance of “others” into the tribe weakens the cohesiveness of the whole. The result of such human instincts is a moral system that regards nationalism, loyalty, and martyrism as good, and regards apostocy and treason as bad. Because of this natural instinct, it’s possible to see how ethnic minorities have always been oppressed and people have KNOWN, in their gut, that their kind was superior to other races or groups. Today we realize that what they KNEW about racial inferiority was wrong.
    How do we KNOW this? How come we’re “enlightened” now? It is because the notion of who is the “other” is maleable. Blacks in the past were regarded as the “other” and the reaction was fear and disgust. Interracial marriage was a threat to the cohesiveness of “our” tribe. But once Americans began to see that “we’re all the same,” we’re all one nation, there’s no reasonable distinction to be made between them and us, then the notion of Blacks being the “other” melted away. Now children grow up seeing minorities as part of their tribe, thus negating any moral dilemma relating to interracial interaction.
    Why is homosexuality different? Because even if you raise a child with homosexuals in the tribe, (such that rejection of the “other” and tribal loyalty are not moral issues) you still have other independent, previously-discussed human instincts and their corresponding morals kicking in that are viscerally repulsed by the prospects of sex with people of the same sex.

  • worrywart

    Joe… not that I don’t agree with you… but I think I was just placing more emphasis on what works best. Societal norms change slowly, but the things that change them best are living, thriving counter examples that everyone can experience (hence the bunnies). This is what scares the bejeesus out of ss and others like him more than anything, and thus why they try so hard to debunk what anyone with eyes can already see.
    We do need to engage in actual intellectual debate, but people on our side need to be aware of what is actually driving the other. This is why the “Truth” ads work so well in discouraging cigarette smoking, because they hit a chord with why it’s not a good idea (and they are also the ones that the cigarette companies refuse to fund with the settlement money).
    We do need to refute the quasi-facts presented by people like ss, but we need to do so in a way that acknowledges and even respects the other point of view. Not that I’m saying you weren’t… but the heart of why everyone is so up in arms about this is because the cartoon matter-of-factly portrays a same-sex couple (which is not out of touch with reality in Vermont or anywhere else in the country).

  • http://drthorne.blogspot.com/ Dr. Thorne

    Rev. John H. Thomas apparently forgets portions of scripture that make him uncomfortable. How about these words from Jesus?:
    “Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell?” – Matthew 23:23
    Not the gentle grace that Rev. Thomas wants us believe was the hallmark of all Jesus’ utterances. Jesus had no problem excoriating sinners and those who lead others to sin. Also, most people forget, while using the “throw the first stone analogy”, that the last thing Jesus said to the adulterous woman was “Go and sin no more”. He calls people to repentance, not tolerance.
    Jesus does not tolerate sin any more than we should tolerate the constant mainstreaming of homosexual activity, a lifestyle which presents, in it’s constant attack on marriage, a clear and present danger to my family and our society. Oh, and God calls it an “abomination” (Lev. 20:13), a word that I don’t recall Him using to describe “intolerance”.

  • jeremy in NYC

    Dr. Thorne – I am not going to debate New Testament with you, as it is a credo I do not follow. But if you’re going to cite Leviticus, I’m gong to ask whether you follow the rest of the Old Testament as faithfully, including observing the Jewish holy days (including its Sabbath, Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur, abstaining from pork and shellfish, wearing fringed garments, and the like. Because otherwise, it might look like you were just cherry-picking the parts of the Old Testament that you agreed with.

  • ss

    I’m interested in what “intellectual debate” worrywart is interested in seeing if he regards my answers as psuedo-intellectual. What quasi-facts am a using? Is Darwinism still just a theory to you when applied to human behavior?
    Given the historical precedent prohibiting homosexual relationships, I somehow doubt that the burden is on the anti-gay crowd to demonstrate the immorality of homosexuality. Why don’t you tell me why it’s moral? All I see are arguments leading from a presumption that men and women are morally interchangable and that homosexual love is self-evidently moral and right.
    Instead of INSISTING that incestual sexual urges (agreed to be immoral) and homosexual sexual urges (morality in dispute) are not fairly comperable, how about you show me why.
    Instead of INSISTING that sexual urges of heterosexuals (agreed to be moral) and homosexuals (morality in dispute) are the same, how about you show me why.
    What is it that “anybody with eyes can already see” if not that there is an attempt to overturn in 30 years the morality of centuries? Is your argument simply that homosexual love is self-evidently right? How does that dispute the argument, supported by the majority of every culture ever on earth, that homosexual sex is self-evidently wrong?
    If it’s all about human freedom to engage in any activity that doesn’t directly hurt anyone else, why isn’t there a belief by the left that we should legitimize consensual incest, apart from the circular argument that it’s self-evidently wrong?
    If there WERE societally detrimental consequences of public acceptance of homosexuality, would it change the argument?
    I’ll agree that if the distinction between p*nis and v*gina, male and female, holds NO moral value, then there is no logical reason to treat man and man differently from man and woman.
    But that still won’t change the biological fact that a vast portion of humanity will always instinctually KNOW homosexuality is deviant.

  • jeremy in NYC

    Actually, that’s interesting; ss, if I’m readfing you right, your main argument is (i) homosexuality has always been wrong and (b) most of mankind just sorta knows in its gut that homosexuality is wrong.
    From a philospophical perspective, that’s not much of an argument. And the same arguments certainly could have been made 30 years ago to interracial marriage. And your only answer to that (as you raised above? “human instincts and their corresponding morals kicking in that are viscerally repulsed by the prospects of sex with people of the same sex.” In other words, point (b).
    From my perspective, if you’re going to try and ostracize an entire segment of society, you’re going to have to do more than that. You try to shift the burden to me, but I’m not the one trying to mess around with somebody else’s life.
    (As for the incest red herring you’re throwing out – it’s wrong for genetic reasons – deformities, it’s wrong because it warps the trust relationship basis of the familial structure, it’s wrong because it’s an abuse of both power and that relationship, and…actually, do I need to keep going? The gay parents I know have what I would describe as a life pretty much identical to what you think of as a “family”, except that both parents are of the same sex (usually women, for the obvious reason).

  • worrywart

    ss… obviously you missed my point if you thought I meant that engaging in an intellectual debate means debating with you.
    But, oh, well, I’ll try. jeremy is pretty much right on when he reduces your arguments. And the idea of assigning “morality” to viseral repulsion is hardly an intellectual point of view.
    There’s no amount of debating in the world that would “show [a person like] you why” heterosexual sexual urges and homosexual urges are comparable. You have to see it for your self, and because of your revulsion, you refuse to. You’re entitled to feel however you feel.
    Now, whether it’s moral to try to prevent anyone else from seeing a different point of view (hence the cartoon bunnies), that’s what we’re debating.

  • Joe

    ss – Thanks for responding. In the first few sentences you mention “Because I and the overwhelming majority of humanity now and throughout history find homosexuality morally repugnant.”
    a) The majority – let alone overwhelming majority – of humanity now does NOT find it “morally repugnant”.
    According to a Gallup poll in May 2003 which asks American adults: “Do you feel that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle or not?” 54% said acceptable, 43% said not. And American opinion is lagging far behind other western cultures on this issue, although certainly ahead of fundamental Islamic cultures (or was that who you were siding with?)
    b) Throughout some parts of history (in ancient Greece, for instance, and even in Christ’s time), the majority of humanity did not agree with that statement.
    c) Throughout history a lot of things that were morally repugnant are not today (as you agree with me in your analysis of interracial marriage in America).
    So then let’s get to where you actually do answer the why is it “immoral” to be gay. Basically, if I can discern correctly from your post – is that homosexuality is “immoral” because it is a human instinct to be repulsed by the idea of sex between members of the same sex. The problem is you are conflating your own innate repulsion into a moral issue.
    Homosexuals are repulsed by the idea of sex with members of the opposite sex (of course). But their society, from birth, taught them that heterosexual sex is normal, so they are not generally repulsed by the idea of other people having heterosexual sex – they just wouldn’t do it themselves. In the same exact way, if American society accepted homosexuality as normal (much as ancient Greek society did), you would have been taught at birth that there’s nothing wrong with gay sex (morally or otherwise), even though you would not want to partake in it yourself. This “instinct” that you are basing your “morally repugnant” stance on – how do you know it wasn’t taught to you? How come it isn’t exactly like being born in the ’50s in the south and thinking it was morally repugnant for a white person to marry a black person?
    You even go so far as to state “Today we realize that what they KNEW (your emphasis) about racial inferiority was wrong.” I couldn’t say it any better than that. Today, I realize that what you KNOW about homosexual immorality is wrong.
    Especially if your only argument is your “instinct”. worrywart is right, there will be no convincing of you.

  • jeremy in NYC

    Yeesh. We are talking about cartoon bunnies, aren’t we? Hey everybody who became a transvesite because of this, raise your hand.

  • Dr. Thorne

    Good questions all, Jeremy. Jesus has become the ultimate sacrifice, making the sacrifices of the Old Testament unnecessary. Likewise, Jesus made it plain to all but the irretrievably lawbound that kosher laws need not be kept.
    ” ‘Are you so dull?’ He (Jesus) asked.’Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him “unclean”? For it doesn’t go into his heart, but into his stomach, and then out of his body.'” – Mark 7:18-19.
    The argument that Jesus is merely talking about a little dirt on one’s food is typically legalistic. Likewise, Paul makes it clear that those who are in Christ are no longer under the law.
    “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law,…” – Gal. 3:13
    Keeping the rabbinical laws will not redeem a single soul as Christ has come and is the only complete redemption.
    But, I know you didn’t want to debate the New Testament…

  • jeremy in NYC

    Dr. Thorne: As stated, I am not a Christian and therefore would not be so presumptious as to debate New Testament threology with you (although I would apprepciate it if you don’t refer to my faith as “irretrievably lawbound”, thanks). However, given your position as stated above, I am not swayed in the slightest by your citing Leviticus to support your position, as you have made it clear that you do not consider the Old Testament binding…..

  • http://narciblog.home.mindspring.com/blog.html Eric

    ” ‘Are you so dull?’ He (Jesus) asked.’Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him “unclean”? For it doesn’t go into his heart, but into his stomach, and then out of his body.'” – Mark 7:18-19.

    So why does that apply to shellfish, and not to a pen1s? (Had to get around the spam filter there.) These Levitical stem from the same taboos about spiritual cleanliness and purity.

    Anyway, as the scientific research in just the animal world clearly shows, homosexual behavior is perfectly natural and completely capable of leading to healthy, monagmous relationships. The penguins in the San Diego (?) zoo are a perfect example of that.

  • Del

    Oh god, are the religious nuts gonna take over this website? I sure hope not. Can’t you people discuss anything without bringing up Bible verses? *sigh*

  • ss

    Calling it a red herring doesn’t dispose of it when it’s pretty much at the crux of the argument. I’m not trying to inflame the issue. I’m trying to engage in debate on the morality of human sexual behavior. There are limited moral comparisons to be made, so I’m sorry you have to keep hearing about incest and pedophilia. It’s clear you just don’t like the comparison because you agree that one is wrong and believe the other is wholesome.
    Do you not find incest wrong in your gut?
    You say “it’s wrong for genetic reasons – deformities, it’s wrong because it warps the trust relationship basis of the familial structure, it’s wrong because it’s an abuse of both power and that relationship”
    Ok- genetic reasons for it being wrong are nullified by contraception and abortion. Technology and the chance for adoption eliminates inbreeding as a concern.
    And what’s wrong with allowing kids to see married fathers and daughters or married cousins, and then decide when they’re old enough (18 or 21 years) whether it’s right for them? If you talk about undermining the family relationship, are you not just engaging in speculation about alleged deleterious effects of alternative lifestyles?
    What if it’s true that the best familial relationship is one man and one woman. What if children perform better and are more productive citizens when raised by one man and one woman, as has been the case for eternity? IF (imagine, and I bet there are odd historical examples of incestuous cultures) empirical evidence showed that there were no deleterious effects of a society that embraces incest would you shrug off your revulsion for it?
    If (imagine) empirical evidence showed concrete deleterious societal effects from raising children in homosexual households, would that change your opinion on the wholesomeness of homosexual families?
    If not, why don’t you also advocate for the destruction of the social taboo on incest.
    I’m not simply trying to be inflamatory. I’m looking for some moral consistency here.
    I recognize that I’m being dismissed by worrywart and others because I won’t change my mind or concede the argument. I could say the same. I just question where you’ll find people ready to engage in a more serious, reasoned and secular debate on the issue than the one we’re engaging in. I have not simply asserted religious authority for my conclusions, as you so clearly detest.
    Sorry if you think I’m a jerk for feeling confident in traditional morals. I’d love to come to your home and be nice. We could be great pals, despite the possibility of heated debates on homosexuality. Or in person, it’s more likely I’d save the trouble and just agree to disagree. I’m confident I’m like a lot of people you know and respect. Whatever. You know, I like Radiohead, not afraid of gay bars, like vodka gimlets, and generally like a lot of things the cool kids like. To dismiss me and those “like ss” is not very open minded.
    I think I’ve addressed most counter-arguments by now. I’ve traced morality to instincts on sexual boundaries inherent in human genetics. I tried to explain how malem prohititum food laws are different from intuitive, malem in se morals regarding sexual boundaries. I addressed how homosexual discrimination and racial discrimination are different things based on different instinctual motivations. I acknowledge that popular culture can influence the general perception of morality, but disagree that that’s healthy for society when such moral re-programming is contrary to genetic programming.
    In essence all I’ve heard in return, is “Homosexual relationships are loving and natural. They feel right and moral. Prove me wrong–but if you try, I’ll dismiss you as a bigot.”
    Thanks. I’m done. (Work to do.) I’ll read responses but won’t post further. It’s been fun. Cheers.

  • Kat

    Animals do it so it must be right. That’s rich. Some Animals eat their young, so is that right? Some animals eat shit, so does that mean you will? Some animal females eat the afterbirth, but because they do it, does not mean I’m about to adopt the practice. I always thought humans were superior because we had morals.
    (Homosexuals are repulsed by the idea of sex with members of the opposite sex (of course).
    Stupidest thing I’ve read all day. How come they infect unsuspecting BI partners?

  • http://narciblog.home.mindspring.com/blog.html Eric

    Sigh. No kat, other people here keep making the assertion that being gay is unnatural, and that heterosexual monogamy is somehow innate and instinctual in the human species. I’m just pointing out that they are wrong.

  • kat

    q??Lmeans right with nature–when you can propogate, then you can consider it natural. The first time one of two gay men give birth I will consider it a natural thing. Till then it’s as natural as a farmer buying another cow to breed his heifers.

  • kat

    I wrote natural means right with nature—-I don’t know where that (q??L)came from.

  • http://narciblog.home.mindspring.com/blog.html Eric

    No, it is natural because it exists in nature, your excoriations notwithstanding.

    And I find your approval and promotion of a promiscuous bovine lifestyle offensive and immoral. My cattle are entirely monogamous.

  • jeremy in NYC

    I get it! So “natural” doesn’t equal “occurs in nature; “natural” actually means “propogates.” I guess that means cloning and artificial impregnation are “natural.” Thanks for clearing that up, Kat – I’m also glad you consider lesbians (so long as the use artificial insemination to reproduce) “natural.”
    SS: I would respond, but you seem to have ignored everything everyone said to you, unilaterally declared victory and left the field mid-game. If you come back, happy to keep this going – am actually enjoying talking to you.
    Oh, and Kat: “Homosexuals are repulsed by the idea of sex with members of the opposite sex (of course). Stupidest thing I’ve read all day. How come they infect unsuspecting BI partners?
    I’m gonna say this reeeeeeeeal sloooooooow for you, since you seem to be missing some basic concepts:
    (1) Homosexuals sleep with people of same sex. They are repulsed by the idea of sex with the opposite gender.
    (2) Bisexuals are people who are attracted to people of both sexes. It would be the “bi” people who might sleep with either a man or a woman.
    (3) Gay people can sleep with bi people of the same gender. It does not affect their revulsion at the idea of sex with the opposite gender.
    (4) Apart from your incomprehension of how this basic concept works, once again: AIDS is not only passed on by homosexuals. It is passed on by heterosexual sex too, as well as drug users.
    (5) Have you considered actually learning about the subject you like to rant about?

  • jeremy in NYC

    Oh, and Eric: Are your cattle married? Because I don’t believe in bovine extramarital activities, monagamous or not.

  • kat

    Yeah, two headed pigs and two headed turtles may exist, but they are not considered the norm. Their existence is an exception rather than the rule. .
    One bull for every cow–that is not good management!:):)

  • jeremy in NYC

    Kat, I think the rest of us can all tell the difference between a statistically insignificant nonrecurrent physical mutation and a regularly occuring non-physical behavioral trend. We’re talking about homosexuals, not the X-Men.

  • http://narciblog.home.mindspring.com/blog.html Eric

    But we weren’t talking about the norm, the mean, the average. Yes, there are statistical distributions in all behaviors, and gays and lesbians are towards the edges. That doesn’t make it unnatural. Globally speaking, being white isn’t the norm; it certainly isn’t unnatural.

  • Joe

    ss – I respect that you don’t feel like debating this issue in these comments anymore. I don’t feel like it either. I wish you had addressed any of my questions about your “instincts”, but I can hope that maybe it gave you something else to consider.
    As far as kat is concerned, your remarks are possibly the dumbest I have ever read in a public forum. And that’s saying something. You weren’t serious in your remark that “homosexuals are repulsed by the idea of sex with the opposite sex” was the “stupidest statement you’ve read today”, were you? I mean, you’re really a 12 year old kid on his grandmother’s computer trying to stir up trouble, right? Anybody want to back kat up on that one? eileen? ss? Anyone? I didn’t think so. kat, you’ve reached a new low of stupidity. Congratulations. Your NAMBLA remarks have been topped.

  • Kat

    Joey, I don’t reply to underage homosexuals.

  • Eileen

    Sure, I will, Joe. How many women married for 30 years with children find that their husbands have been diddling in literally 1,000’s of gay encounters during their marriages? How many lesbian friends do I have that were married for 30 years and also have children? To say that “homosexuals are repulsed by the idea of sex with the opposite sex” is an absurdity. To say that BI’s aren’t gay is also absurd. If you go there, you go there, by any name.
    I’ve clearly expressed my tolerance and acceptance of gays. Just don’t try to pawn off the gay agenda and lifestyle as being mainstream ‘normal’, and don’t shove it down my throat daily in every media spectra. Please see my comments above re why that won’t work. And stop being so insulting and provocative, eh? Make friends, not enemies.
    Eric has it. Funny. Acknowledges the edges….
    Sleep well, all.

  • Joe

    Eileen, Clearly you don’t know anything about what it’s like to be gay. No gay people that I know have any interest in having sex with a member of the opposite sex. It goes against their very nature, their very instincts. Let me ask you, Eileen, – are you attracted to women? Would you ever want to have sex with a woman? No? Are you repulsed by the idea? Yes? That’s the exact same way gay men feel. What if your feelings and instincts were the same but homosexuality were the “norm”? Would you force yourself to have sex with a woman just to fit the norm? Could you be able to? Don’t you see that is what gay people face every second of every day of their lives – because of people like you?
    To support kat’s blatant bigotry just proves that your “tolerance and acceptance of gays” is a huge lie. I was very nice and respectful to ss above, but sorry, there’s no way I would want to “make friends” with a lunatic like kat or anyone who supports her rantings.

  • Kat

    Is anyone who disagrees with you, a bigot, Joey? What is it that I said here makes you throw tantrums, Joey? Take a look in the mirrow, Joey. The one ranting will look back at you–laying on the floor, hurling insults, and screaming bigot as you thrash your little legs.
    Are you a bigot because you won’t see any view but your own? I am not hurling insults–you are-I like and respect Eric, but I don’t see things his way.
    I’d like to hurl some well deserved insults at you, joey,but that would be child assault. Have a good day.

  • Eileen

    So I guess the many gay friends I’ve had over 30 years and I have never had any conversations of any kind about their gayness (my God talk about the opposite being the case). Gays of all stripes have called me friend precisely because I AM tolerant and sympathetic to their feelings and the issues they face.
    Above I suggested a better approach for marketing the gay agenda to heteros that would help engender tolerance and respect. Apparently you ignored that, too, for instead you prefer to call me a liar.
    So Joe, you who are so quick with the labels, assumptions and insults, why don’t you think a second before doing so. I don’t care if you don’t wish to find friendship with me. Too bad for you.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    Interestingly, in Sweden a pastor who used his pulpit to attach gays thus:
    STOCKHOLM — One Sunday in the summer of 2003, the Rev. Ake Green, a Pentecostal pastor, stepped into the pulpit of his small church in the southern Swedish village of Borgholm. There, the 63-year-old clergyman delivered a sermon denouncing homosexuality as “a deep cancerous tumor in the entire society” and condemning Sweden’s plan to allow gays to form legally recognized partnerships.
    “Our country is facing a disaster of great proportions,” he told the 75 parishioners at the service. “Sexually twisted people will rape animals,” Green declared, and homosexuals “open the door to forbidden areas,” such as pedophilia.
    With these words, which the local newspaper published at his request, Green ran afoul of Sweden’s strict laws against hate speech. He was indicted, convicted and sentenced to 30 days in jail. He remains free pending appeal.”
    ++++++
    This was quoted from today’s Washington Post site, “Swede’s Sermon…”.
    Incidentally. Rev. Green is receiving an outporing of sympathy from the very ones he attacked, who recognize that freedom of speech is worth protecting, too.

  • http://nafik.dyndsl.com/incest-porn.html incest porn

    thanks

  • Karen
  • http://nafik.dyndsl.com/incest-porn.html incest porn

    thanks!

  • Mark