Okay folks, I’m pissed off. I’m just gonna warn you in advance.
There have been some conversations lately about the role of religion in, say, the suicide of gay teenagers.
“I don’t believe gay people should get married and I believe gay people are going to be punished by god, but I don’t hate them and I would never be violent against them,” say the religious fuckwits. And they genuinely believe they are not part of the problem.
Well of course they are, but that’s not my point.
Look, let me be unambiguous about this:
If you believe gay people – or indeed any people – are going to hell, then I don’t respect you. I don’t just not respect your beliefs, I don’t respect YOU. As a person. Morally. I feel morally superior to you. I have contempt for you and I think the world will be a better place when you are dead.
I’m not participating in a dialog here. I’m not creating an environment of mutual understanding. I’m not trying to see the world through your eyes. I know what the world looks like through your eyes and it’s a vision that will never, ever become a reality.
The hard part is: am I, with my bitterness and intolerance, any different from the bigots? Am I not myself a bigot? Am I not therefore a hypocrite?
Nope.
For two reasons:
(1) Having contempt for the culturally dominant narrative is not the same as having contempt for the target narrative. Believing that gay people are going to hell gives a cultural purchase to hatred and violence. Like a little bump on a rock where over years barnacles accumulate, the idea of sex as sin is a foothold for discrimination, bullying, harassment, and violence.
Believing that people who believe that gay people are morally inferior, are morally inferior (complicated predication) is the tide smoothing away that bump on the rock. The minority, target perspective – the “intolerant of intolerance” perspective – is a fundamentally responsive, rather than reactionary, perspective. It’s protective of the minority. It takes the punches of the dominant view. It absorbs and buffers violence, where the dominant view commits violence.
(2) This is the really big one: all opinions are not created equal.
The magic of culture is that we move – slowly, messily, painfully, non-linearly, but inexorably – toward justice. Toward equality. The massive blob of humanity is filled with diverse opinions, but the blob moves in a direction; some opinions will be winnowed out. In the natural selection of morals, ideas of hate and discrimination lose. It’s inevitable.
There is no finish line; peace and justice and equality are never complete, can never be complete. But the cultural process of humans is inherently inclusive. We are moving in that direction and cannot but continue so, at the largest scale of analysis. Over time and space, we grow more just.
Religion has been used as a justification for slavery, for the oppression of women, for genocide. And religion has been used to speak out against each of those. It’s not about religion; it’s about you and your wrong opinions.
You “religious” fuckwads, don’t have to respect me – I don’t ask that you do – and it doesn’t matter if you don’t because you have already lost. And I refuse to respect you because that will slow down the movement; the longer it takes us progressives to put an end to your pernicious bullshit, the more kids die.
Not all opinions are created equal. Your beliefs are not innately respectable; the belief that gay people are going to hell is, indeed, contemptible, and I am at peace feeling contempt for those who possess that belief. I am content because I know not simply which way the wind is blowing, but what force causes the wind to blow in one direction or another.
And justice shall roll down like waters, doncha know, and righteousness like ever-flowing stream.
I should probably re-read this before I post it, tone it down; I should probably add caveats about how this is just my opinion etc. But dammit I’m fucking ANGRY. And sometimes righteous anger is the only appropriate feeling.
Well said.
Sometimes it is best to converse calmly and politely.
Sometimes it is best to call out evil with a righteous anger.
Hear hear.
Damn you’re good! Of all the horrors we humans created religion is the most horrible. God must be totally pissed off at the harm religion causes Her creatures. I think She’s saved a special place in hell for religious bigots. It probably looks a lot like a “family values” church gathering but with fire and brimstone and plenty of time for the religious residents to consider their sins against their neighbors. It’ll take a long time. They’re REALLY stupid…
Thanks.
The magic of culture is that we move – slowly, messily, painfully, non-linearly, but inexorably – toward justice. Toward equality. The massive blob of humanity is filled with diverse opinions, but the blob moves in a direction; some opinions will be winnowed out. In the natural selection of morals, ideas of hate and discrimination lose. It’s inevitable.
I don’t actually believe this, but I think my take strengthens your argument. Equality isn’t inevitable, it takes hard work by a lot of people over a lot of time to head in that direction, let alone to preserve the gains or continue to make headway. But this is precisely why it’s important to not allow immoral views to maintain their traction – the endless push towards greater justice falters and slips backwards when the immoral view is ‘respected’ as ‘diversity’.
The trick, of course, is to not become the person ruling out any dissent; these discussions have to happen at least once. But I think it’s important to move on once something gets ruled out after the discusison or else you never get anywhere. I also don’t think it’s that fine a line between ruling things out in a principled vs. non-principled way – the only people who ever claim it is are the assholes.
@Andrew
Mainsplaining.
@Emily
I think, too, that we move toward justice. But the movement is painfully slow.
I had to Google ‘mainsplaining’ :v
That wasn’t my intention, fwiw. I was just thinking out loud about my first thought on this post.
I had to google it too. Myself, I didn’t think that was what you were doing, but then again I know you and also I’d get exactly the same critique all the time if I had a penis. Fuck knows I’m condescending enough sometimes (see above). Isn’t why we get along so well?
Hi Emily,
I’ve been a longtime reader and lurker. For the first time, I feel moved to respond because your post…well, to put it far less eloquently than you would, is just awesome. I love your blog, the advice, and the commentary. It is always fun and interesting to read and I look forward to every post.
I completely agree with you about the immorality of religious intolerance and the need not to dignify it by showing it respect or holding such opinions to be on the same level as others.
I wish I could hold the belief that, “Over time and space, we grow more just.” It seems to me that when we talk about the issues you raise in this post and in your blog generally, you are correct. However, when we look at issues of economic justice things are going in the completely opposite direction. The income and wealth gaps are increasing. Unionization is decreasing. People are having a harder time making ends meet. I’m curious, what does the increasing lack of economic justice in the world say about your general belief that the world is becoming a more just place?
Thank you so much for this blog.
Sam
Not to be rude, but Justice has little to do with equality on a financial level. Money makes money. the poor will always exist, as will the rich. The key is in transformation.
Annnnd reblogging. You. Are. Awesome.
You weaken your argument by tagging it with the word “progressive”. There are a lot of non-left folk (libertarians in particular), who believe as you do on this issue, or even more strongly.
(Also, and while I realize it an inherently confrontational argument even more confrontational, I’ll assert that deep down it actually _is_ about religion, and that we’re getting to the point where more and more people can see that religious beliefs per se actually _don’t_ deserve respect.)
Keep saying it. More of us, keep saying it.
Thank you.
Thank you for this. I am angry too, but not nearly as eloquent. I feel the same way about the “going to hell” crowd. What a bunch of crap and so hateful and non-productive.
standing up and applauding now
Hear, hear.
I cannot “respect” or pretend to respect people who I suspect are mentally doing the happy dance and gloating at the thought of people I like “burning in hell.” Fuck them.
I cannot agree more.
Why do the libertarians always feel the urge to bring their ideology into a discussion of something that has absolutely nothing to do with their particular brand of socio-economic sociopathy?
I’m not sure he’s actually libertarian–he was just bringing them up as an example.
Bravo! I love me some righteous anger.
My only criticism would be…
…screw it. I’m too tired. And there are cookies here.
Bravo.
Ambi,
Why do you feel the urge to pathologize those who don’t share your political philosophy?
WIN.
This.
F%ck yeah! EN FTW!
What an amusing post. I take it from inference that you support the NAMBLA. Our country was founded on the idea that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights and it is God who decreed in the Bible that homosexuality is sin. I hold no animosity towards gays even though I was one of thousands of kids sexually abused by a catholic priest.
You seem to think that because of your political viewpoint that you have more rights than people who disagree with you and at least you admit that yout think that you are smarter than them. I have a genius IQ but what excuse do I have?
God gives us all a choice and rejecting God you send yourself to hell. I suppose that you don’t believe in Hell either. I resect you as an equal, I don’t agree with your opinion but respect your right to have it and speak it. Too bad you are not as egalitarian with others.
Blessings on you and yours
John Wilder
This is why “an open dialog” doesn’t work. Because religious fuckwads say stupid shit like “support gay rights is the same thing as supporting the rape of children.” REALLY?!?! Dialog doesn’t work when one side of the argument doesn’t follow established rules of evidence and logic.
The bible says homosexuality is a sin. The Bible also told you not to eat shellfish or pork, not to wear blended fibers, and, oh yeah, to stone to death people who blaspheme the name of the lord. Like me. Come and get me John – the bible says you have a moral obligation to stone me to death.
I live in Northampton, MA. We’ll set up a public stoning in the park downtown. Bring your bigot friends. Come and get me, you ignorant, bigoted hate-mongering fuckstick.
Marry me, Emily. I have been arguing with one such religious bigot this week, and I have two messages in my inbox that I will probably ignore. There comes a time when you have to admit that the dialog is over. Problem is it was over in MarriageCoache’s mind long before you started speaking. He lies when he says he respects you because he has likely never even wasted a one point of his precious genius IQ that he was so humble about to investigate your point of view on homosexuality. As the bigot who is trying to fight her way out of my inbox has said, the bible is enough for him. Oh, but he will argue that you used all old testament laws to defend yourself. Well, how about Paul. As you said in your main post religious, racial and sexist bigotry rooted in his teachings has caused enough pain in this nation.
He didn’t even listen to what you said, you did not argue that HE was not created equal, but that not all OPINIONS are equal. You may have the opinion that the world is flat. Good luck getting a government grant on that to do more research. Too late, it’s been proven wrong. You may have the opinion that women are inferior. How DARE you expect me to respect such a disgusting opinion as that? Coach, you arrogant bigots say this shit all the time and we’re calling you out on it. It’s nonsensical to say you respect us and expect us to believe in your witchcraft and hokus pokus beliefs. If I want that I’ll watch Star Wars again. May the Force be with you as you leave. And keep going, thanks.
What pretentious merde.
Gays and Lesbians are hunted down in the Islamic world all the time. You wouldn’t dare condemn a mob of Islamic fascists for what THEY DO to gays and lesbians because you know that they would come after you.
Some Islamic fascist savage issued a fatwa against a cartoonist for “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” and the best this Government could do was to put a United States citizen in the Witness Protection Program.
It’s very easy to smoke out “progressives”. They’re the ones who ignore Islamic fundamentalist violence because its so much easier to beat up the the Elmer Gantry crowd.
Too bad. They want to behead gays and lesbians, too. And here’s an easy prediction for this conservative to make: you don’t have the guts to say write what you just wrote on some Islamist message board. You know why? Because what you just wrote above was directed at people you KNOW won’t kill you.
Call me when you fly to Pakistan and demonstrate against the savagery taught in the madrasses against gays and lesbians every day. So much easier to preach to the converted and whack the Bible Thumpers. They won’t kill you. They won’t even send you to Jesus Camp.
Reread the post. It says nothing at all about Christianity. Everything it says about religious fuckwitism is presented in a nice, nondenominational terms. It’s as applicable to Islam as it is to Christianity or any other religion that condemns homosexuality.
This is a very stirring defense of Christianity though. “Yeah, well the Muslims are even worse.”
Oh, how polite and clever: swearing in French. Clevah, clevah.
I agree with this entire entry so very much. Thank you.
Beautiful. Just…beautiful.
@marriagecoach1: Your gay-hating, nasty little god exists only between your ears. It is the impotent projection of your tiny hateful mind. I’m more direct and explicit than Emily: take your “blessings” and go F*%# yourself.
@marriagecoach1:
Citation needed.
Oh there’s a hell alright. It’s what people like you create for gay kids, right here on earth.
And NAMBLA? Srsly?
You and your deranged little hate cult cannot die soon enough.
@marriagecoach1 / John
bwaahahahaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!
Ha! I came to this post expecting a lot more variety of opinions in these comments! Save for marriagecounselor above (I sometimes have a hard time believing these people are for real and they’re usually best ignored – and I tried to make that statement less condescending but decided against it in the spirit of the post) it seems everyone is pretty angry right there with you!
I experience quite a different emotion- sadness. Children are brainwashed into religious dogma at such an early age that it’s often irrevocable damage. At some level, I do find it hard to blame someone for a reinforced belief they’ve been terrified into carrying with them for their entire lives…. especially when those beliefs lead them towards such poisonous lives.
I do know anger won’t do us any good, but sadness won’t either. What do we do to fix this?
Okay, and I re-read Wilder’s comment and I have to say, I feel sorry about not toning down the condescension. I’m sorry to the rest, I feel like I fail on the outrage meter here. But to be fair, making a factual claim that someone will go to hell for not believing in the same jamba juice you believe in is a little condescending too.
Don’t be sorry for being condescending Marissa. John’s survival doesn’t make him less of a bigot.
Thanks for the ‘moving-towards-justice’ bit. After all the shitty things I’ve been hearing people say about the suicides, it was good to hear, and I hope you’re right.
@marriagecoach1
Child Molestation has basically nothing to do with homosexuality, even if the victim is the same sex as the perp. It’s a whole ‘nother kind of thing.
This is a really, really important distinction.
Thank you Emily.
Someguy,
Not only that, but John’s inability or unwillingness to make such a crucial distinction vaporizes whatever credibility he might have.
So John has a “genius level IQ” but cannot tell the difference between consensual adult sex and the sexual victimization of children – even though he himself was so victimized?
Furthermore, this genius level IQ infers support for child sex abuse from Emily’s forthright condemnation of those who would deny legal and social equality to gay people?
That’s not just apples and oranges. That’s apples and beef stew.
I guess genius ain’t what it used to be.
Should we bother to point out that the “Creator” mentioned in the D of I is not the Christian God – something known to even the greenest student of US Constitutional history?
Or that maybe, just maybe, the sexual hang-ups of Bronze Age mythology might not be the best guide for modern people to live by?
@section9:
And, therefore we should pay no attention to hateful religious bigots in the United States.
I hereby condemn all mobs of Islamic fascists for what THEY DO to gays and lesbians. Anybody care to join me?
Because what the U.S. needs to do is bomb, invade and occupy more majority Muslim countries. That’ll make all the hardliner Islamists more moderate, amirite?
Smoke out “progressives”? It’s not like we’re hiding. You can find us very easily by, for example, doing a google search on women’s rights groups Islam. Oh, look! Why, there are a whole bunch of progressive organizations very busy not ignoring Islamic fundamentalist violence. Since this is clearly a big priority for you, too, I assume you’re a regular donor, or you were just somehow completely ignorant, and you’ll be writing one of them a big check today.
And about:
Because we cannot simultaneously fight for gay rights and women’s rights in the United States and abroad. It’s simply not logically consistent. (And calling monsters “monsters” is not the same thing as “beating up” monsters, but you knew that, right?).
Too bad. They want to behead gays and lesbians, too.
Do you say things like the OP on Islamic message boards? If not, why not?
Tell it to George Tiller. Or Oklahoma City. But we must never, ever do or say anything about that, at least until there are no scary Muslims left anywhere.
Once again, everyone: remember that we cannot post blogs about Christian bigots in the United States, at least not until we prove our bona fides to section9 by protesting outside of Pakistani madrassas, which is where we can always expect to find the brave, noble section9. And does anyone believe the Bible Thumpers wouldn’t kill gays (and uppity women) if they thought they could get away with it? Tell it to Matthew Sheppard, and the countless gay kids bullied into suicide…by Christians.
What pretentious merde.
“I hereby condemn all mobs of Islamic fascists for what THEY DO to gays and lesbians. Anybody care to join me?”
Consider yourself Joined.
It’s official: you’re my new crush. I don’t care if you are a girl.
I’m at a loss to say how wonderful that post was, Emily.
Thanks.
Emily, I’ve been your admirer since I began reading your blog. Now, after reading this post, I absolutely adore you.
Love,
Ed
Pingback: Emily doesn’t respect you, and neither do I. |
Thank you. And… yeah, that’s all I’ve got. Thank you.
Pingback: Comments to Emily Nagowski’s post. |
First of all, the laws you mention were all Old Testament laws which were done away with the New Testament and Christ’s crucifixion.
Talk about logical insonsistency. You advocate for women not to subjected to sexual violence but you practice verbal violence against people who disagree with your viewpoint. You have no more right to verbally abuse me than I do to physically abuse you. I don’t hate anyone and you obviously do which makes you a huge hypocrite.
You should know that rape is not about sex but about violence and control and men’s hatred of women. You show absolute disrespect and hate for anyone who disagrees with you. Reminds me of Perez Hilton’s diatribe against a certain beauty contestant who disagreed with gay marriages which is consistent with President Obama’s view.
As to my molestation, it is all to common among gays. President Obama’s education czar stood by and did nothing when a teenaged boy came to him and talked about being sexually abused by a grown man, a teacher I think. There is logical consistency to my argument whether you choose to see it or not. You don’t come close to practicing what you preach but I have seldom seen a liberal who does. Hate speech is a piece of legislation that liberals push but are the most egregious offenders of their own proposed legislation. Nice that you are honest eno0ugh to show your true colors and intolerance.
I teach couples conflict resolution skills. The first is that you practice assertive communication rather than aggressive communication and verbal slams against the other person. Assertive communication makes your points of disagreements without the slams as word clubs to beat someone else into submission.
I wish you well
John Wilder
Matthew 5:17-19
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Talk about logical inconsistency.
Your reference to rape is an incoherent non-sequitur. The worst thing you can say is nowhere near as bad as physical violence, especially sexual violence. Leaving aside the first amendment protecting the right to free speech and not the right to free violence, if someone’s words and actions are leading to human suffering, you don’t just have a right to speak out against them. You have a moral obligation to call them out.
Let’s clarify things here. It sounds like you see this as one group of people saying “People shouldn’t live gay lifestyles,” and another group of people are viciously attacking them for it. If that’s how you see it, then it makes sense that you think the response is out of proportion. But the way Emily and I see it, you have a large number of people who: teach their gay children to hate themselves and fear eternal punishment; foster a culture in which a disproportionate number of gay teens commit suicide ; actively campaign to deny gays equal rights; and/or physically assault or even murder people based on their sexual orientation. This is not people engaging in a debate, this is people destroying lives. For this they deserve condemnation.
Did you READ my post, in which I explain why I think it’s not hypocritical of me to think I’m morally superior to you, why it’s fair for me not to tolerate you ignorant bigotry?
Having said that in my post, would I then see your ignorant bigotry and say, Well you’re welcome to your opinion? No. I’m going to tell you to go fuck yourself you hate-mongering fuckstick. My whole point is that I think people should tell people like you to go fuck themselves, rather than sit poliely while you spew your filth and call it holy.
As to my molestation, it is all to common among gays.
It’s all too common among straights as well. Straight men rape girls. Yet the only time it’s a big deal to you folks is when it’s done by someone who’s the same sex as the survivor.
You should know that rape is not about sex but about violence and control and men’s hatred of women.
Gee, thanks for the mansplaining! I never knew that!
You show absolute disrespect and hate for anyone who disagrees with you.
Actually, it’s hateful and disrespectful to actively work against someone’s civil rights (same sex marriage, the ability to adopt children, the right to serve in the military, anti-discrimination laws). It’s hateful and disrespectful to peddle slander and lies about gays to justify this hatred and discrimination on your part.
And make no mistake–you are completely ignorant about child molesting. Child molesters don’t have a gender orientation–they have an age orientation.
But what the hell? It’s not like the oh-so-Godly Catholic church didn’t hide behind this slander to deflect responsibility for their gross inaction–and in many cases, active efforts to cover up–child molesting priests (who, by the way, ALSO molested girls, but they don’t count amirite?)
Assertive communication makes your points of disagreements without the slams as word clubs to beat someone else into submission.
Does assertive communication include peddling stereotypes and lies about a group? Because that’s what you’ve been doing regarding gays.
And you know what? If you support, or work to enact or perpetuate policies that limit someone’s civil rights, then yes, you are hateful and you are a bigot. Sorry if that bothers you so–the truth does tend to hurt–but when you tell people that they are not even worthy of second class citizenship, that they are going to hell, and that you think they are all a bunch of child molesters, you’re going to get heated responses. You will not be respected, and you will be regarded as a bigot because you are denying the humanity of an entire group of people.
“You should know that rape is not about sex but about violence and control and men’s hatred of women. ”
Actually, rape is about control and dominance. Gender is irrelevant. You’d know that if your IQ was educated. And there is a difference.
And I wish you spelling lessons. You need them, genius.
I think you are wrong about disrespect and name-calling ever being justfiable, Emily, and this post makes me sad and upset.
I don’t believe humanity has a tendency towards inclusion, and I don’t believe the best way to undermine hateful opinions is to express your own intolerance and venom for the unfortunate people who hold believe those ideas. I believe that is polarizing, dehumanizing, and unhelpful in it’s own right. I believe that refusing to give in to the temptation to disrespect others, no matter how much we disagree with them, how wrong they are, or what terrible things they have done is a fundamental choice we must make in order to make our future better.
http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/2010/03/physiology-behind-xenophobia.html?spref=fb
That’s all well and good, but we’re actually talking about kids’ lives here, and their equally sad and unfortunately choice to end them over bullying–not to mention the violence that women and gays are subjected to every day.
As nice and good as it is to be respectful, tip our hats and say “Howdy, neighbor!” we’re in the midst of a culture war here–we didn’t start it, but we’re fighting it. We don’t have time to sit and sip tea with the other side.
John,
Wow, you actually dragged out that tired old apologetics line? Really?
As for the rest… I needn’t bother. Your critique of Emily’s post is so laughably inept as to be self-refuting. For the rest of us it’s like watching a man punch himself in the nose. Repeatedly.
GreenG,
I agree with you about the inclusion thing. But, alas, sometimes there’s nothing left BUT venom.
The thing about dialogue, reason and all that good stuff is that they require, at minimum, the possibility of a receptive ear. Otherwise you’re just talking to yourself.
Every scrap of available evidence, without exception, tells us that being gay does not make you an inferior person, parent, citizen, worker, thinker, friend, spouse or whatnot. There is no “moral” element to homosexuality distinct from that of heterosexuality. Period. Full stop.
Now, we are confronted with those who claim otherwise; who insist that ancient superstitions and ignorant fears are legitimate because some invisible Sky Daddy says so.
This is as unhinged as me claiming to be Charlemagne and demanding that all of modern France and Germany be turned over to me.
Such a mindset cannot be “respected.” You cannot “reason” with that which is the antithesis of reason.
Every scrap of available evidence, without exception, tells us that being gay does not make you an inferior person, parent, citizen, worker, thinker, friend,
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that homosexuals are in any way inferior. I don’t at all agree with violence of any kind directed at anybody.
Sadly you don’t see that you are every bit as culpable of hate speech and verbal attack as the jerks who bullied the homosexual boys into suicide which I defnititely don’t condone.
You don’t change hearts and minds with hate speech and vebally bludgeoning someone. You might intimidate them but you have not changed their minds. You don’t at all intimidate me. You are sad pathetic people who justify their own verbal bullying in defense of people. You use the classic wifebearters excuse that if she did not piss me off and her stupidity then I would not have to beat her.
Ethics demand that you follow the rule that you have no more right to verbally abuse someone than they have to physically abuse you. Otherwise you are just as guilty as those you hate. I don’t hate anyone, even those of you who ignorantly verbally abused me for daring to have a difference of opinion. You are guilty of religious intolerance as well.
John Wilder
“You don’t change hearts and minds with hate speech and verbally bludgeoning someone.”
Nor do you change them by inflexible and preformed determinations of what they are. You change them by reasoning with them. We are not trying to recover from a massive depopulation here. We are in a position where it is reasonable to accept people’s choices. You, like all others, have the right to choose your own path, as I have. You, and by proxy “WE” do not have the right to determine anyone else’s path. Nor should we make them feel ‘less’ for those choices. We all travel our own road. Neither you nor I have any say in which road someone travels.
Hi John,
I just want you to know that your arguments do actually kill people. I am asking you very very politely and kindly (although I agree with Emily’s right to speak angrily and “rudely”) to listen to me and perhaps consider how, although you claim that you don’t want to inflict violence on members of the queer community, “sticks and stones” really can break bones.
When I deeply considered taking my own life when I was fifteen, it was because I had heard time and time again that “God hates fags.” I had been told over and over again that I was wrong and evil and depraved for loving other women. It was this kind of logic that caused a constitutional amendment to ban civil unions succeeded in 2006 in Wisconsin. As a result, LGBT people across the state were completely deprived of health care and access to a whole host of important lifesaving services. In some cases, this meant that people, against whom you do not wish to direct “violence of any kind,” died. Your words –> death. The view that all members of the queer community will go to hell is abhorrent in my eyes, but I suppose I can’t prevent you from holding that view. BUT: I do believe that in this case, where your words actually cause the DEATHS of those people you claim not to wish violence upon, you have no right to “free speech.” Your words –> death. Simple as that.
So please at least own up to what your words do. I’m asking you to consider the ramifications of your words. You might want to consider googling the “tone argument” (which mostly has to do with derailing conversations about racism, but I think applies very well here), because Emily’s right to be angry and to express herself through angry words on behalf of the LGBT community is certainly justified. We have every right to be angry, to yell, to scream and kick and make as much noise as we want, because otherwise WE WILL DIE. Every day that we are polite and “don’t flaunt it” (read: are silent) more of us “fags” will be prematurely eliminated from the face of the Earth.
Also, as far as your charge of “religious intolerance” goes – please don’t equate the two. Christianity has historically held an enormous amount of power in the United States (although it’s untrue that the Founders based the government on their religion), and it continues to be viewed as the natural/normal and therefore “right” way of thinking. Attacking Christianity is not the same as attacking an oppressed population who are being systematically eliminated through a combination of biased laws, internalized homophobia, and hate crimes. As far as I know, Christians are not being systematically killed with tacit approval from the government and others in the United States… that’s the difference – you have lots of power, we do not. Looking up the concept of “privilege” might do wonders here as well.
I’ll pray for your hate-filled soul… (Because murder will mostly get you sent straight to hell, last time I checked the general consensus.)
Cheers,
Erin (Mount Holyoke College ’13)
John Wilder?
Aren`t you the same John Wilder who wrote this on CNN Money:
“Three years ago I decided enough was enough and quit using my card and stopped making payments on $12,000 in credit card debt.
I still owe the money, but the credit card companies usually write off balances after seven years.“
I think you appear to know very little about what constitutes the moral high ground.
John sayeth:
“Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that homosexuals are in any way inferior. ”
However, John sayeth earlier:
“Our country was founded on the idea that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights and it is God who decreed in the Bible that homosexuality is sin.”
So, John denies believing that gays are in any way inferior but DOES believe that homosexuality is, innately, morally corrupt – a “sin” – in a way that heterosexuality is not.
John does not specify homosexual conduct – as even the Catholic Church does, these days – but homosexuality itself; merely the condition of existing as a gay person.
Indeed, Roi, logic does not seem to be John’s forte.
The rest of John’s recent missive is so crashingly stupid as to be, again, self-refuting.
BIGOTRY IS BIGOTRY It doesn’t matter weather you’re a religious, gay, or racial bigot. If the shoe fits…
I don’t disagree that I’m a bigot against deliberately ignorant, self-congratulatory fuckwits too stupid or too selfish to recognize the consequences of their attitudes. I DO disagree that the fallout of my bigotry is the same – hence my post.
<3
as Mulierosity said:
<3
As Emily pointed out in response to John’s first comment, one cannot have a productive dialog or debate with conservatives like John. You cannot use reason, logic or evidence to convince them they are wrong, since they did not arrive at their opinions by rational means in the first place. They believe stupid, hateful shit like:
and
If such a Biblical god existed it would certainly not be worthy of worship, and putting aside that there is no evidence for the existence of any god(s), John nevertheless believes the above statements are “true.” Unfortunately, providing conservatives with hard evidence that disproves their erroneous beliefs often causes them to believe their bullshit even more strongly, so in a very real sense, trying to convince people like him to change their minds is actually counterproductive. They just cling even more strongly to their wrong beliefs. (And you will never out-scream or out-bully them; they have had many, many years of practice and are heavily invested in the idea that, if in response to their relentless shrieking interruptions and refusal to address any point you’ve made, you shut up or walk away, this means they’ve “won.”)
The point of engaging with someone like John (or section9) is not to convince him he is wrong; even though he can easily be shown to be morally, factually, logically, and fractally wrong, it will never convince him. But there is a very good reason to do it anyway: to communicate something to other people who may be witnessing this “dialog,” lest anyone mistake silence for agreement, concession, or apathy.
Yeah. I struggle with not engaging – not because I want to role model alliance and activism but because such nonsense is like intellectual pruritis and I just CAN’T leave it alone. *sigh* my life would be easier if I could either respect or ignore the fucksticks.
I didn’t mean to imply that you (or anyone else) should always engage fucksticks. I don’t know you, but maybe you CAN leave it alone – not always, but sometimes. Fact is, fuckstick slaying is freaking exhausting! And it’s an endless, seemingly pointless battle, because fucksticks will always be among us. But I’ve learned that I can and should choose to ignore them sometimes for my own wellbeing (granted, this is definitely a late-acquired skill and against my natural instincts). I ain’t exactly proud of the times I’ve walked away from it, but for me it helps to know that more and more, there are others (like you) who will pick up the sword – sometimes – when I cannot.
You’d never be able to respect the fucksticks, even if you wanted to, but you might learn to ignore them…sometimes.
What seems clear is that you don’t understand that hate cannot be crushed with hate. Ignorance can only be addressed with knowledge, and open forums are critical, because one person will never change his / her views by sitting alone and figuring it out on his / her own. It just doesn’t happen.
You spout hate. If you have contempt for someone because of his views, you are as limited in mind as he is. Have contempt for the ignorance. Then inform the Bible thumpers that translations of the Bible are still debated because so many people who translated it possibly didn’t understand the terminology and context of it in terms of the culture 2,000 to 4,000 years ago. “Homosexuality” for instance, demands a re-examination, as some linguists now suggest that the word as used in the original texts referred to adult men having sexual relations with boys – clearly pedophilia, and not homosexuality.
That’s why debate must be calm, researched, and presented in open forum: so this information can be addressed to prove its ignorance. You have done nothing to help the situation with your tirade.
This isn’t hate, it’s rage. Totally different. Calm is not an adequate response to hatred that results in violence. The fuckwits don’t listen – that’s what makes them fuckwits – and they are incapable of reasoning (see John below) , so education and tolerance are ineffective. They thus forfeit their place at the table.
Same situation. You can’t quell hate or rage WITH rage. It only serves to escalate the situation. It must be approached differently, or the shouting matches with closed ears will only continue.
I know it’s just a movie, but American History X gives a good example. Edward Norton’s white supremacist only learns of the true nature of a black man by being forced to see him and listen to him in a forum where the anger and rage and hatred were in the back seat. The movie struck a chord because it was true to human response.
Rage and hate will not solve this.
Edward Norton’s character in American History X didn’t actually exist. He also had to be gang-raped by white supremacists in prison in order to figure out that they weren’t such nice people after all. Plus, he stomped a man to death before anyone intervened. That fictional character would probably have preferred a more direct approach.
In real life, I can think of Stonewall off the top of my head. Those people rioted and changed history; their anger was powerful. Anyone else care to contribute actual examples?
You know, I’m an atheist? I don’t care what the Bible says about homosexuality or anything else. I don’t care what any religious text says about homosexuality or anything else. I’m not hunting for a religious justification for adherence to the establishment clause. We don’t live in a theocracy. Religious beliefs about homosexuality should be completely irrelevant to my freedoms under the laws of this country. They should be completely irrelevant to the ability of teenagers to protect themselves from the level of harassment that drives them to suicide. I don’t care if the first Christians did hate homosexuals on exactly the same terms and for exactly the same reasons as Pat Robertson does now. They are not an authority in this discussion, and their beliefs do not limit my human rights.
@Kathy
While your intentions are noble, laudable even, you missed the point. This post was a display of frustration. Or exasperation. But to touch upon your point, what solution do you propose? Logic and reasoning have proved futile. Your assertion, and I agree, hate and rage will prove equally futile. Hopefully by now, you see that rage, succinctly and lovely depicted via this post, is actually the logical progression and natural reaction here. Because the only thing more ridiculous than bullying kids into suicide due to sexual preferences is doing the same due to pizza topping preferences. Actually, I think the former is still more ridiculous given that it’s a product of biology. Ooooo, I know. Sex differences! You’re a female?! Blasphemy! According to God, that’s a sin! Burn in hell! Et cetera.
Seriously, I don’t want to speak for Emily, but I will be more than happy to entertain a solution.
A solution to Emily’s frustration? Why would I want to solve that? I agree with it! I feel it!
I even agree that “rage… is actually the logical progression and natural reaction…” if we want the logical, natural progression of fundamental value system disagreements to lead to the kind of enemy dehumanization precedes killing those who cannot be convinced to stop disagreeing with you. It is THAT outcome I must disagree with.
However, it also seems obvious (and she seemed aware in the original post) that her conclusion (that it is excusable to be a bigot against bigoted people) was much more about feeling than logic.
This idea is not rationally defensible, only emotionally defensible, which is why there has been so much repetition of such justifications as the defeatist “there is nothing left but venom” or the belief that the dissenter who holds unethical beliefs negates any ethical argument they try to make. And let me not forget:”this” is why open-dialogue doesn’t work, or the rebuttal “then come and stone me,” or that there is only “sit[ting] politely” vs telling people to “go fuck themselves” (on a SEX POSITIVE BLOG). I am sorry I cannot consider such ideas effective, or even rational arguments and I am dismayed that I find it difficult to curb my own reactionary expressions of derision.
I realize that there is no arguing with many people. I am not defending fair debate. I am asking that we take our stand clearly, even when we must state we are unwilling to argue, without obscuring our righteous outrage with our own hate, aggression, verbal and emotional attacks, etc.
You don’t always know who those people are or where you are going to find them, and you aren’t likely to find them through catharsis inspired by the masses of people in this world who provide endless reasons for us to feel legitimately outraged and supremely frustrated every single minute.
There is no excuse for dehumanizing other human beings, not even their own dehumanization of the most weak and vulnerable members of our society.
I am not asking you to try and understand the rationale behind irrational beliefs, but I assure you that some kind of explanation is there. (You may dismiss all positive influences that religion has because of all the extremely negative ones it also has. You may not want to actually think about how difficult it is for some people to simultaneously believe that God is loving and that God hates gay, to simultaneously believe that they are good people while they believe that gays have to be sinful, bad people, to simultaneously believe that they are rational people while they believe in a prejudice with no real evidence. You may not be able to or even want to imagine that struggle, or the struggle of someone who honestly can’t believe that gay people are bad, and yet honestly believes in the Bible…) Honestly being unable to fathom someone else’s delusions makes you no more logical or justified.
Let me highlight only two of the terrible ideas being listed in this post:
Terrible idea #1) Gays are morally inferior
Terrible idea #2) Calling people “fuckwads” is equivalent to expressing the moral inferiority of the above idea
Fuckwads… literally meaning discarded refuse used after intercourse (which in and of itself, I see nothing wrong with)… which, I’m guessing, is purely supposed to be very derogatory… but does not seem very accurate. Why is this more effective than expressing that prejudiced people who irrationally believe such morally inferior ideas are actively causing harm to others, etc, etc, etc… Why is telling someone that you cannot respect their belief, their mindset, not a profound enough statement that you need to tell a fellow human being that you also cannot respect their existence?
You know… I wonder why I argue whenever I encounter this attitude, even when I agree with the position passionately. I don’t think it’s because I think there a point. I don’t assume that the groups of people who agree with me on what is morally outrageous are any more reasonable than the groups of people who are opposed to me about what is explicitly outrageous. Unfortunately.
I just want to be one voice standing up for a world in which people who believe opposing, and yes, sometimes even terrible things, can find a way to live together without those beliefs causing damage to those around them.
Thank you for the eloquent and well reasoned reply. I am impressed and moved. But I think you’re too noble, if that’s possible, and maybe too utopian for lack of a better word. Yes to compassion and acceptance. Yes to defending another’s right to express a thought we vehemently disagree with. But somewhere a line needs to be drawn. If I understand you correctly, you would accept anyone that proclaims that 1+1=3 (in base 10) and bully those who disagree to death? Emily drew her line and I <3 her line.
Ghandi and Martin Luther King provided an excellent solution that worked. Perhaps we could follow their lead. . .
Gandhi (yeah you misspelled it) and Dr. King were both murdered. What they did worked in their times and don’t seem to be working in ours.
I disagree. Their deaths don’t mean that what they did didn’t work – look at the change created by the movements they led. As the saying goes, if you’re pissing people off you know you’re doing something right. I think their approach to creating social change was HUGELY powerful, maybe the MOST powerful way to create change outside of actual governance or military intervention.
I’m not trying to lead a social change movement here. I’m just saying I personally am done trying to be nice and patient with the intractable morons. Social change happens as people who were on the fence get off it and starting walking, not when we persuade the unpersuadable, belligerently ignorant dipshits of the world. They just get left behind, and good riddance.
Martin Luther King actually stepped back from the stance you’re mutilating here. We’re not really sure what he would have said next, because he was murdered by a white supremacist after being threatened by thousand of other white supremacists, including many people working for our government.
Rage doesn’t work? Have you ever read Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”? He wasn’t advocating playing nice with segregationists.
Kathy, you can suck up to the homophobes all you want. The rest of us will do the heavy lifting to correct the situation while you sit on the sidelines, wringing your hands and whining about how mean and nasty the people actually trying to do something about homophobia. I’m sure you’ll feel superior to us nasty people who have the nerve to put homophobes in their place.
The only thing I find surprising is you’re not demanding the GLBT folks go back into the closet. Or is that just a little too blatant even for you?
Kathy Tortoreo:
What world do you live in, where “calm, researched debate presented in an open forum” effects large-scale, positive change, ever? John accused Emily of supporting NAMBLA, and section9 accused her of ignoring Islamist violence, fer chrissakes. If you think calm, researched debate is effective in changing minds like these, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
and:
Citation needed. Did women get the right to vote by calm, researched debate? How about civil rights for African-Americans? Susan B. Anthony, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King had millions of followers – what motivated all of these people to march, protest, hunger strike, and risk life and limb? Hint: it was not calm, reasoned debate. In all of these cases, including the one addressed in the OP, the violence and vitriol spewed at the oppressed makes Emily’s “tirade” look like a Hallmark card. To assert a moral equivalence between the side of vicious hatred and violence and the side that screams in rage in response merely demonstrates what an ignorant fool and a coward you are. If we listened to people like you and GreenGlass and just be nice and calm and reasonable, we’d still have Jim Crow and women couldn’t vote.
Rage does not purport to solve anything, but no large scale societal injustice has ever been addressed without it. It is a perfectly noble and appropriate reaction to willful, hateful, irrational ignorance. Kids are dead because of that, not because Emily’s pissed off at fucksticks on the internet. Get some perspective.
I apologize that my attempt at responding last night was somewhat convoluted.
“To assert a moral equivalence between the side of vicious hatred and violence and the side that screams in rage in response merely demonstrates what an ignorant fool and a coward you are… ”
I would like to clarify that I am capable of believing two ideas are bad and that certain strategies are morally equivalent, but in this case I also believe that homophobia would qualify as being “worse” to a greater degree than the belief that homophobics should be verbally attacked. That doesn’t make the lesser evil preferable in my eyes.
It’s funny how conviction and persistence makes it hard for me to accept that I am either fool or coward. I know what I am attempting, no matter how inadequate or clumsy.
“If we listened to people like you and GreenGlass and just be nice and calm and reasonable, we’d still have Jim Crow and women couldn’t vote. ”
I don’t want you to be nice. I don’t even want you to be calm. I don’t think it’s too much to strive to be as reasonable as we can be.
“It is a perfectly noble and appropriate reaction to willful, hateful, irrational ignorance. Kids are dead because of that, not because Emily’s pissed off at fucksticks on the internet.”
Yes. Good. It is a valid reaction. I am trying to address a small part of what she has done with that reaction and energy.
“Get some perspective.”
My perspective is that lasting change is not motivated by temporary rage, no matter how intense or valid.
**”Yes. Good.” meaning I am in support of the _reaction_, I am very glad that Emily was angry about kids dying, I am glad you are too, because it IS so incredibly upsetting. ;_;
GreenGlass – My reply was mainly directed at Kathy Tortoreo, not you, in particular her assertion of moral equivalence between the side that spews vicious hatred and violence and those who would scream back in rage. I apologize if this was not clear in my post.
Where I took issue with your earlier post was here:
First, prejudiced people who irrationally believe such morally inferior ideas do not care that they are actively causing harm to others: in many cases it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. (See: Carl Paladino.) Second, no one is arguing that you cannot or should not use reasonable discussion or debate to effect peoples’ opinions, just that relying on only that tactic has a track record of failure. Some people may be swayed by it, but others may be swayed upon self-reflection after someone they respect, or better yet many people, mock the ridiculousness of their position. Third, seeing someone express rage on your behalf unquestionably has a powerful and positive effect, especially when they do not have a horse in the race. You know you are not alone, that your cause is not hopeless, when other people of good conscience rail against the injustice of the status quo. (Feminist men have had this effect on me.) I am not LGBTQI, but I really give a shit about the bullying, I think religion in general and Christianity in particular is a huge source of homophobia and misogyny in our culture, and that those who would justify this violence and abuse with the bible absolutely deserve to be relentlessly attacked – verbally. Think there are gay kids who might take hope and courage from Emily’s statement: these people are fucksticks? I do.
and:
I’m sure we’d all like to live in that world. But here in the real world, people who believe terrible things are causing damage to those around them, and in a regrettable number of cases being reasonable does not work. (Fucking NAMBLA?!) Again, no one is saying that just calling every fuckstick a fuckstick is going to change a single fuckstick’s mind, but it could very well spark a change in the mind of someone with unexamined beliefs.
Finally:
Again, I am sorry for any confusion about my previous reply, but ^this^ is exactly where we disagree. The history of every social justice movement proves you wrong. It’s not the case that too many people are enraged; too few are.
For the record, I threw out the NAMBLA comment because having some experience with them, they use the same hate speech you do and the name calling.
Check with the mental health specialist of your choice and show them this blog and see if they support your hate speech and name calling.
For the record I don’t support bullying of any kind nor verbal abuse and I am deeply offended that you chose to attack me when I said nothing disrespectful to you but you obviously don’t care.
All you do by your ranting is turn people off to your cause.
John Wilder
I believe that the monotheistic, Abrahamic God does not describe anything in reality, that religion is largely an inherited delusion, and I am glad of that because the God of the Bible (Old Testament, New Testament, or Koran) is utterly depraved, not worthy of being compared to a mass murdering dictator, because he has so much more power that he abuses so much more horribly (or he would, if he was any more real than Zeus or Thor). Therefore I consider Abrahamic religion, particularly the more conservative sects that take the Bible literally, to be one of the most grave threats that the world has to face. Yet I mostly try to be “respectful” on this issue. It doesn’t help, of course; believers think that my assessment of their religion is itself morally abhorrent. They will feel offended and, yes, even verbally abused, no matter how I word my criticism, because it’s the idea itself that they find awful. I’m not going to shut up because of that.
On this one subject, where the correct moral path is so clear that even many believers agree with me, where religious bigotry is actively ruining the lives of people around me, on this one subject, I sometimes let my real anger show through, my anger at unjustifiable wide-scale oppression, perpetrated by a mass of believers who all convince each other that they are tolerant, lovely, good people, who use propaganda and circle jerking back-pats and rancid apologetics to convince each other that they are just doing the will of a loving God. It’s sickening, and it hurts people, badly, way outside of the realm of abstract debate, where believers can wrap themselves in a cloak of ignorant self-righteousness, plugging their ears to these issues. At least, until those uppity gays manage to get into the news, at which point the fuckwads will bleat that if they just wouldn’t be so gay, they wouldn’t have these problems.
These people do, in fact, have a deficiency in their ability to reason morally, and so do you, John. Your Bible says evil things, and your supposed God says evil things, and you do nothing put play the yes-man to these vile influences. Care to explain how I could honestly express that sentiment, and not be “offensive”? Given that I think that teaching fundamentalist mythology is a good way to cripple a child’s moral reasoning, do you really think that I’m that concerned when the people promoting such toxicity complain about the “bigotry” directed at them? You have the right to free speech and free religion, just like the KKK does and the Nazis do and the Mormon church would even if it still taught that blacks were born deficient. But that doesn’t mean I don’t despise everything you stand for, not even when your viewpoint happens to be popular at the moment.
On a side note: if you have to say that you have a “genius IQ”, it sounds like a sign of deep insecurity, Mr. Mental Health Professional.
*sigh* I may have gone overboard in two respects. One is by overusing the word “believers” as if there was a monolithic group of such people. The other is the phrase “everything you stand for”, which is both melodramatic and reaching (like I have any idea what John “stands for”).
But damn it! Why would I want to engage nicely with people who admit that their views are based on unquestionable dogma and not open to change or criticism? Why would I want to engage nicely with someone who accuses me of depravity because, uh, well, because “book says so”, with the unjustified, apparently delusional assertion that “God wrote it”? It’s like you are just begging to be labeled a lost cause.
One thing I find very interesting is the only people who bring NAMBLA up in conversation are homophobe conservatives like John Wilder. Of course Wilder has already shown he doesn’t know the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, so it’s not surprising he accuses gay-rights supporters as being pedophilia enablers. Perhaps Wilder is confusing us with the Catholic church.
@ GreenGlass
Actually, it’s funny. You did draw a line. You disagree that rage or perhaps more specifically, the use of the word “fuckwad”, constitutes an acceptable expression.
PS: Your line and Emily’s don’t have to be mutually exclusive so to speak.
Agreed. If anyone is doing the LA Aids walk this weekend, maybe I’ll see you there. =)
@ John Wilder:
No, you threw out the NAMBLA comment in an attempt to equate Emily’s angry condemnation of religion-based homophobia with child rape. You are not fooling anyone.
You said this:
Translation: it’s not me, John Wilder, who thinks homosexuality is icky, wrong, abnormal, shameful and evil (though strangely titillating…?). No, no, no. It’s a god who thinks that (the god who allegedly created people the way they are) and I, John Wilder, with my genius IQ, am humbly relaying this god’s opinion.
Ask the mental health specialist of your choice about “projection.”
and this:
And you’re deeply offended, are you John? You think you’ve said nothing disrespectful? Then here’s a suggestion: take your deeply offended ass somewhere else, and when you get there, please try not to contribute to a hateful atmosphere that makes gay kids kill themselves.
For the record.
One more thing:
[Citation needed.]
Actually, you’re right.
Suppose two kids, A and B, aged, say, five. Kid A punches Kid B. As a parent/teacher/adult, do you scold A and tell/teach/explain to him/her never to punch someone or do you ask why A punched B? What if the reason gave was something silly like B has a Batman lunchbox. What if it was because B killed A’s guinea pig unintentionally? Intentionally? I think I would definitely teach A never to punch another. No matter what. I think.
I cannot express how touched I am. That even one person would be surprised into thinking about what I was trying to say is everything I hope for at this point.
The weirdest thing I’ve seen recently (in the discussion that sparked this post and in the comments here and frankly everywhere recently) is this ‘hate the sin/love the sinner’ attitude. People saying ‘homosexuals are sinners and God says NO!’ and then immediately saying ‘I don’t hate gay people’. Why do people think you get to have both these views at the same time?
This article (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/nyregion/12paladino.html?_r=1&ref=politics) got me thinking about this again today.
Great post! Why should anyone tolerate intolerance?
MarriageCoach, you’re a complete fucking dipshit. That whole “old testament is invalid now blah blah blah” is a complete, poorly built strawman. Who gives a shit that your god tossed out some really stupid rules? The point is that your stupid god HAD THOSE RULES TO BEGIN WITH! How omnipotent is that moronic deity when he admits to making such ignorant mistakes?
Your stupidity is mind blowing and you are a horrible person. NAMBLA my fucking ass, stop pouring out false equivalence and other non sequitors. Try investing in a book on logic, then see if you can go for a 2nd grade education to brush up on reality and reasoning you stupid fuck.
John Wilder said:
That would also include the Levitcus prohibition against homosexuality woudn’t it?
Your equating physical violence with verbal and saying their the samething!? Apples and oranges, oranges and apples. As for your saying that Emily as no more right to verbaly attack you than you have to physically attack you. Well you FAIL. There is the First Admendment and free speech which gives her the right to to do so. Meanwhile laws make it illegal for you to attack physically Emily. And thanks for mind reading Emily. You do realize that she was talking about having no respect for people not about hating them.
So saying Gays are abnormal, and sinful and will burn in hell is not hateful!? As for Perez Hilton and a certain Beauty Queen isn’t is just so fascinating how so many Christianswant to be the victim of the big bad Gay who is pingem by calling their beliefs stupid. You of course don’t see how easy it is to accuse people like you of disrespect and hate for telling people that they are sinful and will be burning in hell if they don’t believe what you believe. Kettle meet pot.
Like most so-called Christians what you want is for your beliefs not to be subject to ridicule or attack, anything that does so is in the eyes of people like you hate speech. What you want is for speech attacking you to be muzzeled. Sorry tolerance does NOT and never did require that people only speak softly and nicely. (Tolerance requires that you don’t discriminate, (i.e., deny employment etc., of people for reasons of ethnicity, race, sex and so forth)). Of course such a requirement would require that certain so-called Christians muzzel their speech, wht with their denunciations that most of the human race will burn in hell for not believing correctly. Sorry but the hate crimes law do not crimilize anti-homosexual speech that is just a scare tactic of the hysterical rightwing. Of course the hate speech of so-called Conservatives is quite massive, from racism to hatred of Gays and Islamaphobia, to the swarm of lies issuing about President Obama.
And thank you for your comment about Gays and molestation. So are you saying that Gays commonly molest children. Thank you for telling that oh so common lie and canard. Well guess what it isn’t true. Do I have to say it Gay men are attracted to MEN not children. Child molesters are attracted to children. Regarding the story that you quote about the Education Czar, (nice that your using a term blungeoned to death by the anti-Obamites). How does the story of one man’s handling of a situation tell us anything about Gays. Just how does this one man’s behavior tarnish all Gays. But thats the point isn’t it all Gays are responsible in some sense for child molestation. By the way the kid in question was not a child ( I believe he was 14 or 15) and further he wasn’t having sex he was thinking of having sex. Conservatives very rarely practice what they preach. So many lie and distort and of course they have been demonizing Liberals for quite sometime. Your arguement boils down to I want the freedom to attack those I disagree with but I want those I attack muzzeled.
Emily does not, and is not interested in having a relationship with these people; so your advice is not relevant. It is of interest that you took advantage of the opportunity to advertise your services.
OMG, this OkCupid research article is awesome… please check this out. If you want to make a difference, share it!
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-sex-vs-straight-sex/
“Gay issues have been in the news a lot lately, from the debate over same-sex marriage in Congress to a sickening rash of gay-bashing here in New York City. We see a lot of emotion out there, instead of information, and we wanted to provide some data-based context on sexuality so that people might make better choices about what they say, think, and do.”
I especially like the “which is bigger: the earth or the sun” question.
I also like the “that’s interesting but I disagree” type comments. I find it entertaining when people think their personal opinion is more accurate, valid, or important than data.
Pingback: Two Quick Links | Alas, a blog
I am a gay person. And I have to say…I don’t particularly have a personal problem with religious people who believe that gay people are going to hell. Perhaps that’s because most very religious Christians that I know have been okay, respectful people who haven’t done me any harm.
But, I mean…they know that I believe their religious is hokum and that I believe they spent a substantial portion of their time talking to no one and praying to nothing. I feel like that makes us even. Like, they can send me, after I am dead, to their imaginary prison, if they want. What does it matter?
As a religious lesbian who considers religion to be an integral part of my identity, I’ve noticed that most people act on the assumption that “religious” and “queer” are mutually exclusive categories. Sadly, this is more of a problem for me in queer communities than in religious communities. I’ve found it to be MUCH easier to find queer people who think religion-bashing is ok than religious people who think queer-bashing is ok. Too many times I’ve heard “religious” (or “Christian”, though often “religious” is equated with “Christian”, which is another kettle of problematic fish) equated with “homophobic” or “bigoted”- all on account of a minority of vocal extremists who use religion as a crutch to prop up their baseless hate. Here I fully identify with your rage- this is abhorrent, as is the widespread culture that generates the thin miasma of disapproval that leads to so much suffering. I am completely ok with bashing hate. I’m not ok with equating that hate with religion. I understand why doing so might be seductive- religion has been and still is used as an excuse for a lot of violence and hate, and it’s an easy scapegoat on which to direct anger. But most homophobia I’ve encountered wasn’t fueled by religion- it was from people from a variety of backgrounds, usually not religious.
I believe one of the other comments expressed the opinion that struggling gay kids would be comforted by the rage at “religious fuckwits.” This may be so for many gay kids, but don’t forget that there are others of us out there who would simply have felt alienated from the queer community they were struggling to accept and be accepted into. It’s frustrating and tiring to fight battles on both sides at once.
And it’s clear, I hope, that I’m NOT religion bashing. I say explicitly that it’s not about religion, which can be a tool for good or a tool for evil. I’m bashing the belief (and indeed the people who have it) that gay people – ie, you – are morally corrupt and will be punished by god. That belief is a causal mechanism behind hate and violence. Not the ONLY mechanism, but an entrenched one that gets protection due to its status as “faith,” which is why it has earned my special contempt.
I did take note of the place where you explicitly state that it’s not about religion, and I appreciate that. However, your post did remind me strongly of many other arguments I’ve been frequently exposed to that do not bother to make that distinction, and it makes me twitchy. Since some of the discussion in the comments has strayed near religion-bashing territory, I wanted to step in and present an often underrepresented point of view that I think needs to be heard more. While there’s been an overwhelming response to John Wilder’s attempt to separate condemning homosexuality and condemning queer people, no one seems particularly concerned that we’re skirting the same issue with religion.
It is not at all clear that you are not religion bashing. That is all you and your cronies on here have done. I have less problems with you religion bashing than I do with your personal hate speech. It is constitutionally protected as is the hate speech that caused the suicides but no one respects that. You seem to think that it is okay to spew hate speech which never works. It was pointed out by a previous poster that you have first amendment rights to spew your hate speech, but as an educator I would think that you are more capable than that.
I would really appreciate knowing the name of the college where you teach so that I could write the president of that college and see if he or she agrees with your hate speech. You differ little from the white supremicists that I grew up with and all of their hate speech.
We in this country have the highest divorce rate on the planet. Precisely because people lack good conflict resolution skills and because of the american cowboy spirit of punching first and asking questions later. In Japan, they have less than half the divorce rate of Americans. I attribute that in part to their practice of face or saving face. It is part of their culture that all disagreements are handled respectfully and it is unforgivable to cause someone humiliation or embarrassment. By the way, Japan is largely an atheist nation so it is a logically consistent argument.
You win no converts wih your name calling and dehumanizing people who disagree with you. You are preaching to the choir (if you will excuse the religious reference) with your hate speech. It might make you feel better, but that is s selfish and self centered notion that again wins no converts.
You all think that you are so brilliant that you can actually read my mind and interpret what I was thinking when I said why I threw out the NAMBLA comment. Again they use the same hate speech that you do.
You remind me of a two year old thowing a temper tantrum because she does not get her way. Pathetic!
John Wilder
John, you have been spewing hate speech throughout this thread. You trotted out the gays as child molester slander and tried to backpedal, you said that gays are going to hell and that homosexuality is a sin. That’s hateful. You seem to think it’s a-ok to discriminate against gays and lesbians, to keep them from having the same rights as the rest of us, and you base it on your religion. That’s hateful. Follow whatever religion you want to, but do not force it down our throats. Do not work to enact laws and policies that make a group second-class citizens simply because your religion told you gays are immoral.
Just because you aren’t cursing doesn’t mean what you have said isn’t hateful, bigoted, and vile. Physician, heal thyself.
Wilder, you’re the one who first brought up religion. You told us specifically:
If you’re going to use religion to justify your homophobia then you cannot complain if people comment on religion. Besides all of the best known homophobes are like you, using religion to excuse their homophobia. Boyd Packer of the Mormon Church, the Pope, Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard (who we know is completely heterosexual) and Fred Phelps are all religious homophobes. Can you name a single atheist or agnostic homophobe?
“In Japan, they have less than half the divorce rate of Americans.”
In Japan they also have a word for working one’s self to death… ‘Karoshi”
Not the best example.
“I attribute that in part to their practice of face or saving face.”
Like Sepukku?
“You remind me of a two year old thowing a temper tantrum because she does not get her way. Pathetic!”
And by insulting your counterpart, you lose the debate.
An “educator?” Please tell me you’re not teaching English. Or phonics.
Many “marriage defenders” and purveyors of “homosexuality is sin” arguments can be aptly likened to Mayor Richard Wilkins, whom Buffy the Vampire Slayer fans will remember.
On the surface, Mayor Wilkins is a pleasant, civil, family man who is committed to manners, polite language, and cleanliness. Behind the scenes, he is an evil sorcerer who is plotting to kill graduating high school students. Yet, incapable of recognizing his own aggression for what it is, he consistently views other people’s rudeness toward him as The Most Grave Offense Imaginable.
Anyway, thank you for writing this, Emily. I get so tired of the “you’re so intolerant for not tolerating my intolerance of you” argument. As though a person who is arguing against my equal rights as a lesbian is an equally legitimate viewpoint as arguing for my equal rights.
And also, from John Wilder’s blog (click on the “reverse sexism” tag)
“It is appalling what feminists and feminist counselors tell couples about sex. They say that women should only have sex when they feel like it and disregard their husband’s feelings…
Feminists and feminist marriage counselors tell women and men that women should only have sex when they feel like it and to disregard men’s needs. This message has become common in mainstream marriage counseling. In all sincerity, is this not the ultimate in self centeredness?”
John, there’s a word for making women have sex when they don’t “feel like it.”
That you (a) imply that a man is entitled to sex from his wife because it’s his “equal right” to have sex with a woman who doesn’t want to have sex with him at that particular moment, (b) call a woman “the ultimate in self-centeredness” if she refuses to have sex with her husband, and (c) suggest that it is a man’s “equal right” to have sex with his wife even if she doesn’t want to is one of the most offensive perversions of equality rhetoric I have ever seen. I would appreciate knowing whether you are even licensed to “coach” couples and individuals.
While it may not be okay of Emily to call people “fuckwads,” your pontifications about the duty of women to have sex against their will are infinitely more abhorrent than anything Emily has said here.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
I’ve just read through these comments, not all of them, but I am struck that John Wilder’s comments are perfectly illustrate a strategy of misdirection: Let’s talk about how something is said rather than the substance of what is said; let’s criticize the person who is angry for being angry and speaking out of anger rather than try to address the thing that makes the person angry.
Now, I realize that John Wilder, because of his beliefs, probably feels himself personally attacked by what Emily wrote, and his defensiveness, because that is what the need to misdirect usually grows out of, is, frankly, understandable. My first reaction to someone coming at me with level of rage expressed in Emily’s post would also be to defend myself. But instead of getting over that defensiveness to try to demonstrate that Emily is wrong when she claims that those who think “gay people should[n't] get married and..believe gay people are going to be punished by god, but..don’t hate them and…would never be violent against them” are indeed part of the problem–instead, in other words, of trying to show Emily why she shouldn’t be outraged at people like him (and, John, it’s not all about you, personally)–he actually proves her point by refusing to deal with what she is angry about in the first place.
Rage is sometimes appropriate. In this case, I think it is. You want to argue with someone who is enraged, you show them the courtesy and respect of acknowledging that their feelings are valid and then you deal with the substance of what they have to say. John Wilder is not doing that.
Fannie
You are guilty of selective publishing. You will note in that same blog I noted that I don’t support forcing any woman being forced to have sex against her will but complained about feminists teaching that is perfectly acceptable to force men to do without sex aginast his will on a regular basis. Where is the equality in that?
John Wilder
John Wilder claims: “You are guilty of selective publishing.”
Wrong.
Specifically, John, how do you reconcile your belief that women shouldn’t be forced to have sex against their will with your belief that it is unacceptable sex inequality for women to withhold sex from men. Those are two inconsistent views.
Please be specific.
I will be addressing your reprehensible claims at my own blog in the near future. Feel free to elaborate there or via email to me.
Sheelezebub
I never said nor do I believe that it is okay to discriminate against gays for any reason, religious or otherwise. As far as marriage, I believe in civil unions becasue marriage is defined as being a man and a woman. If you want to call names, call Obama a fuckwad because that is the same position he takes. I have stated that previously.
As far as gays as child molestors, I previously stated that Obama’s education czar saw no problem with a minor coming to him and telling him that he had been sexually abused by a gay man. Nambla does use the same hate speech as evidenced on here. You don’t see straight child molesters lobbying Congress to make consensual sex between men and little girls non criminal. Nambla has the same non profit status as do churches. How about that for irony.
I am not saying that all gays are child molesters, but a significant portion of them are. It is impossible to quantify because kids are good at keeping secrets expecially homosexual molestations. I am a victim of it myself as well as thousands of other kids. Yes heteros also abuse children. The thousands of kids abused by catholic priests are but a tip of the iceburg because of the unwillingness of many to tell abbout their experience.
God also said not to have sex with animals as well. Where do you guys stand on that sin?
John Wilder
Both men and women have rights in a marriage. I am saying that women misuse their right to say no. There are certainly legitimate reasons for saying no, but many times is is just because she has a lower libido and turns the guy down.
Studies indicate that 40% of all married women with kids at home have force their husbands into a diet of sex once a week or less when the average man has a need of 3 or 4 times a week. Then the feminists go all nuts railing against pornography. Men use porn as a masturbation aid that they would not have to resort to if their wives took care of them.
Look at Bill and Hillary. It was obvious that Hillary did not give blow jobs so Bill just found it elsewhere. Perhaps you approve of this but most women don’t.
There are also women who have higher libidos than their male couter parts and I am just as tough on the men. Here is the part that you won’t like; The Bible is an equal opportunity player when it comes to sex. In I Cor 7 it says that the woman’s body does not belong to herw and ALSO a man’s body does not belong to him but they belong to each other. It says not to deprive each other of sex lest you get tempted to cheat.
Sex is one of the big 3 couples fight about and get divorced over. Divorce is devastating to children. Read Judith Wallerstein’s monumental study on the effects of divorce on children.
So bottom line is that a lot of women have exercised their right to say no right to the divorce court when the guy is now getting it elsewhere.
So have a field day with this info.
John Wilder
So it is all down to a petulance over men not getting enough nookie–I thought as much.
If men have a need 3 or 4 times a week, perhaps they should do what we gays were always told to do by our “spiritual counselors”–take a fucking cold shower.
Failing that, perhaps they should grab a handful of Kleenex and hightail it to the nearest quiet room.
Wow, if I was cynical I’d think you were intentionally antagonizing folks by suggesting that a person with a lower libido than their partner does not have a legit reason for declining sex and that you are being asinine for purposes of receiving subsequent attention and publicity your views may arouse.
But because I’m optimistic, I’m going to believe that those are you are sincere in your beliefs. Which is even sadder.
I hope you find any help you may need.
@John Wilder:
Citation needed. And you will not come up with one, because this is false, and what with your genius IQ, you must already know that it is a hateful, despicable lie. So what does that make you, John? A liar. (Note: that is not hate speech. It is a factual statement.)
and:
Entitlement to someone else’s body is a horrific, morally indefensible, evil idea. Make no mistake: John is providing justification for, if not outright endorsement of, rape. (Note: this is not hate speech, or completely deranged hyperbole like John’s NAMBLA analogy; this is a logical inference from John’s own words.)
John, MY BODY BELONGS TO ME. There are no caveats. My partner may enjoy it when I share my body, but make no mistake: it is mine to share, or not. For any reason, or for no reason. And you have an opinion to the contrary, bible-based or otherwise, that I am supposed to respect? Two words: FUCK YOU. (Note: this is not hate speech. This is me enraged at an inhuman, religious-based view that exhibits profound contempt for and entitlement to a woman’s body – or anyone’s body.)
Hopefully you can parse this, John: I don’t hate you, personally. I HATE (yes, that’s H-A-T-E, hate) your religion. (And not just Christianity, although I admit I do happen to hold it in particular contempt.) I hate all religion, because within its purview, good people (who would be good people anyway) are so easily indoctrinated into irrationality, sexual repression, misogyny, gay-hating, hierarchical gender-binaries, and models of intimate relationships like what you’re peddling here, among many other evils. And bad people? Well, they can easily find plenty of justification for whatever their own particular evil proclivities may be in the bible. (Note: this is not hate speech; all hatred referenced in this paragraph is directed at ideas held by people, not the people who hold them.)
You are a sick, sad little man, and, to paraphrase Emily, the world will be a better place – at the very least for gays and women – when you are dead. (Note: this is not hate speech, nor is it a threat of any kind. It is a simple, sound conclusion drawn from the copious evidence presented in this very thread.)
BTW, do you want to know how I became an atheist, John? I actually read the bible.
fannie: looking forward to your take. Please post a link here.
Liberalism is collapsing under its contradictions. The moral life goes beyond rights and includes self-respect, self-control, and some connection of ends and means, including the end of life and sex life and the means to the same. You don’t believe in anything, but you assert certain rights. We only have rights because we have purposes, and our purpose is not to pleasure ourselves but to master ourselves, contrary to the broader sex liberation ethos (of which gay rights is only a small part). Anyway, you hate me and my society, why should I care and not actively seek to suppress and destroy you and people like you. Judging by all these ballot initiatives, there are more of me than you; your time will pass, whether directly or by conquest of a more austere and disciplined group, perhaps Muslims or Chinese.
Only decadent societies on their last legs create people like you. And those societies soon disappear. Far from this being the march of universal progress, this is the death knell of a healthy society, as evidenced by the combination of infertility, feminism, gay rights, and all the rest.
This is so appropriate to this thread. You need, need, need to check out this YouTube Video: FCKH8. John Wilder, you will be offended. Most everyone else who has posted here will not.
Love it. And as a side giggle…
http://verydemotivational.com/2010/10/10/demotivational-posters-the-pope/
Iris;
You deny hate speech and then proclaim that I am sick sad little man who would be better off dead. Again you lack civility just like gay hating and black hating bigots.
As for citation just punch into your search engine sexual abuse by catholic priests. It is a world wide pandemic. Punch into search engine NAMBLA. You don’t have heteros banding together to lobby Congress to decriminalize consensual sex between grown men and little girls. It is not a lie there is ample evidence but you are so blinded by hate that you refuse to see the 2 ton elephant in the room. I have nothing further to say to you. You dislike me because of my religion, how is that any better than people not liking gays because of their sexual orientation?
As far as sex, women are harming their children by getting divorced because of sex and forcing their children to live without their father becasue of sex. Read Judith Walllerstein’s work. She is not a Christian.
Iris, I decided to give some citation for you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry
The vast majority of you are textbook bigots according to the dictionary. While you are at dictionary.com also look up the phrase hate speech.
2 wrongs don’t make a right ever
Pingback: links for 2010-10-15 « Embololalia
John,
Your misunderstanding is comprehensive.
Like IVP, I don’t hate you. Franky, You don’t matter enough to me to earn, genuine, capital-H Hate.
What I hate are the hallucinatory, irrational doctrines which have done you more harm than any childhood assault ever could and which have programmed your mind to the results seen here on this thread.
I hope you snap out of it. I fear you will not.
Dominus vobiscum, Iohannes.
Also, Iris VP is my new Internet Hero.
@ Mr. Roach:
FTFY.
Now, did you read that somewhere, or did some Daddy figure tell it to you? While I am sure it’s some very profound stuff, my silly ladybrain just cannot comprehend what the hell it means. It’s just an incoherent non sequitur to me, but that can’t be it…can it?
Citation needed. You pulled that one right out of your ass. Just because I don’t believe in gods, does not mean I don’t believe in anything.
See, here’s something I believe in: the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
FAIL. We have rights because we are humans; we have rights because we have a Constitution that guarantees those rights. In a free society, my “purpose” is not for you to decide. If you have some weird puritan compulsion to “master” yourself, whatever that means, by all means knock yourself out. But you do not get to master others, by denying their rights. If I decide my “purpose” is to pleasure myself, then it is. Your arrogance is unsurprising. But your ignorance regarding rights is stunning.
(As an aside, I’ve noticed that people who generally object to pleasure are also uniformly cheap bastards – I’m just wondering, are you a cheap bastard, too? Tax protester? Bad tipper?)
I don’t hate you; I don’t even know you. But I am very curious as to exactly what society you think you own. What exactly do you mean by “my society”? What makes it your society – and not mine? I am a law-abiding American citizen. I was born here, raised here, public schooled, state university. I pay my taxes, vote, and care deeply about the issues of the community I live in, this country, and the planet. How is it that in an enormous, pluralistic, multicultural democracy, you are somehow more entitled to lay claim to “society” than me?
But you go right ahead, sir, and “seek to suppress and destroy” me, while people like me wholeheartedly endorse your right to be just as big an entitled asshole as you want to be – provided you do not deny anyone else’s rights. Is this a great country, or what?
Just because right wing authoritarians are so easily manipulated into voting for petty and vindictive ballot initiatives, does not mean there are more of you than there are normal people. And I am sure you and I agree on at least one thing: “majority rules” is a terrible standard for morality.
“Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” -Martin Luther King, Jr. And “austere and disciplined”? (I bet they’re cheap bastards, too.) With your obsession with those values apparently above all else, I really hope you don’t have any children.
People like me? Like me how, exactly? Uppity women?
Well, I know some history too, enough to make a prediction: If U.S. society collapses, it will be the direct result of conservative social and economic policies.
Citation needed. Feminism is what enables women to escape from the living hell of life-long submission to entitled, narcissistic men who value things like “austerity” and “discipline” over things like joy and basic human rights. I gather your idea of a “healthy society” would involve rolling back the clock to pre-feminism? Well, I’m sure things were easier for you, your little world much more orderly, when women knew their proper place, amirite?
@ John Wilder:
What is wrong with you? Am I not writing clearly, in basic English? I do not dislike you because of your religion, John. I have Christian friends and family. I dislike your religion, that is true. But that is not why I dislike you, John. I dislike you because you actively seek to deny rights to other people based on a religion.
Sexual orientation is not a choice. Your religion is a choice. It really is. I don’t know why, but you just cannot seem to comprehend this. In your fevered imagination, are gay people, should conservatives ever deign to empower them as equal members of society, going to deny your right to be a hetero? To be Christian?
News flash, John: some dads are controlling, tyrannical abusers. Some husbands are lying, cheating assholes. My parents’ divorce was the best thing that ever happened to them, or to my sister and me. But for some reason you seem to see the whole world full of entitled slutty women divorcing unimpeachable men. And even if you were right about this (you’re not), what does this have to do with the toxic culture of Christianity contributing to gay kids killing themselves? Oh wait, is that the fault of the entitled slutty divorced women too?
You say you have nothing further to say to me. Well, that’s probably for the best, since the more time I spend trying to understand the twisted workings of that NAMBLA- obsessed little mind of yours, the more I feel a strong need to take a shower.
My wish for you is that you gain some facility for empathy, wisdom, humility, tolerance and reason. I am pretty certain you will not.
One key difference between what John believes God said versus believing in equal rights for gay people:
Unlike God, we can actually know and prove that gay people exist.
But that is not why I dislike you, John. I dislike you because you actively seek to deny rights to other people based on a religion
I am not trying to deny anyone rights for any reason. What have I said on here to lead you to believe that assertion?
News flash, John: some dads are controlling, tyrannical abusers. Some husbands are lying, cheating assholes.
I am well aware of the problem people. My father was a tryrannical abusisve asshole. The exceptions don’t disprove the rule. I refuse to believe that the 40% of women who keep their husbands on a diet of sex once a week or less are tyrannical abusive assholes. I have worked with a lot of men who were not and still were emotionally and sexually starved. I worked with a wealthy brother of a very famous moive star. His wife never had to work outside the home, had paid housekeeping help and he was lucky to get it twice a month. He was so angry and bitter that he did not even want to have me attempt to reason with his wife. There are two very nice men in my family who have been married for years and their wives have not giving them sex in years.
You feminists should rewrite the marriage vows where you promise to let your husband “have and hold you” (a eupemism for sex) to I will only have sex with you when I feel like it. I fully reserve my rights to be completely self centered and selfish and your needs are of no concen to me. I can’t imagine many guys taking you up on that deal. The problem lies in that women have a lot of sex with guys in the beginning, but turn it off after they get married and have kids. It is so common that they have had sitcoms based upon this such as Everybody loves Raymond.
When women turn their husbands down for sex, it makes him feel unloved, unworthy and worthless. Whenever she forces him to masturbate alone, it breeds real resentment for the woman. Men get the bulk of their sexual needs met through sex with their wives. Women would not think of denying one of their children of a hug if they felt the need, but have no problem denying their husbands nurturing and affection.
Image if you gave him sex 4 times a week ( and I can hear all the feminists wailing as they read this) and the act lasted a half hour. That is two hours or slightly more than 1% of your time in the week.
You may have heard that behind every great man is a woman. Men do better and thrive when their sexual needs are being met. It makes him more attentive, loving and in a much better mood at home and a much more productive worker at work which yields pay raises and promotions.
Contrary to your denying a man sex whenever you feel like it, my model is a win win for everyone. Or perhaps you still cling to the feminist notion of marrilage like ‘Bill and Hillary’s where she stood on her right to refuse oral sex to Bill and he got it elsewhere. That is my notion of a feminist mariage. Love is based in giving not refusing to give.
What the fuck? If I, despite being married to someone, don’t want to put my mouth on his dick, then guess what? I DON’T HAVE TO! Now, he can try to convince me that it would be wonderful, and I can be convinced, or not. He can provide me with oral, and try to persuade me to reciprocate…..or, he can divorce me and go get a BJ elsewhere. All of those are possibilities. What isn’t a possibility is that he has a “right” to force me to do this when I don’t want to. When we get to that, it is rape. No questions asked.
Possibly I don’t want sex as often as he does. Possibly he has been a complete ass this week and I really don’t want to see him, let alone touch him…….doesn’t matter. No man has rights to use my body when I don’t want him to.
I don’t understand the point of these tirades of yours about heterosexual marriage and feminism on this thread. Is it because you believe uppity women are the cause of every problem in society – including all those dead gay kids? (And your bizarre pronouncements about the Clintons’ sex life is nothing more than speculation on your part.)
But since you insist, I’ll bite. I think I see your problem – well, one of them: Sex in a healthy relationship is something to share, not something a woman “gives” a man on demand. You are explicitly relegating sex to the status of a woman’s household chore, and that is sick, and it is sad.
Your notion of a “feminist marriage” has zero correlation to my feminist marriage. In response to your last post, my (very happy) partner of many years just remarked: “We don’t need to fuck everyday, but we do need to talk every day. It’s the intimacy that’s the key, and sex flows from that intimacy. We’re not keeping score of times per week we have sex.”
My marriage vows contained no euphemisms for entitlement to sex on demand. The notion that this is equivalent to “I fully reserve my rights to be completely self centered and selfish and your needs are of no concen to me,” is wrong on so many levels, yet it is exactly the relationship model you are advocating for – only from the man’s point of view.
Does it ever even occur to you that maybe some women are revolted at the idea of sex with their husbands because their husbands are exactly the kind of entitled assholes you insist they have every right to be, i.e., completely self centered and selfish and their partner’s needs are of no concern? I’ll let you in on a little secret, John: men who think like you do are really shitty lays. You’re the reason women fake orgasms, in a desperate attempt to get the entire unpleasantness over with as quickly as possible; it’s just much easier than getting you to actually give a shit about the other, equal human being in the relationship.
Yet curiously, this just doesn’t happen in my “feminist marriage.” I wonder why that might be?
But back to the dead gay kids: do you not see how the rigid, binary gender roles you flail on and on about create an incredibly toxic culture not just for women, but for everyone who is not a straight male, like… oh, I don’t know, gay kids?
@ my comment to Mr. Roach:
My strikethrough tag didn’t work. My capture of your first quote should read:
Conservatism is collapsing under its contradictions.
Wilder obviously feels that if a man says “fuck me NOW” then the woman’s only acceptable response is to pull down her panties and spread herself on the bed. Otherwise the man will become sexually frustrated and do nasty things like advocate gay rights or some liberal nonsense like that.
@GeorgeFromNY:
Thank you.
*blushes.*
Iris:
He’s not really interested in arguing the point of the thread; he’s more interested in misdirecting. He reminds me of my freshman composition students who will do anything to avoid having to talk about the subject of an assigned essay that they haven’t read. They will manage to have opinions, passionately held and sometimes even moderately informed, about all kinds of issues that are tangentially related to the subject of the article, which they half-assedly glean from its title, but they cannot muster the discipline, intellectual or otherwise, actually to read and try to understand what I have assigned or to take responsibility for the fact that they have not.
*applause* I am right there with you in being fed up with these bigots and their mealy-mouthed “respect”, so it felt good to read your rant calling them out on it and returning the sentiment. (I was pointed to your blog by Iris, and I really like what I’ve read.)
Richard Jeffrey Newman:
Very well said. Self-reflection is not exactly the strong suit of the right-wing conservative, but I do wonder whether John realizes that he’s deliberately misdirecting. Or perhaps he actually believes that feminism, and not conservative Christianity, is what leads to suicidal gay kids.
Adamant
And to others, I am not saying that women should be forced to do anything. The reason that I brought up hetero sex was Fannie took one of my posts out of context and claimed that I believe in forcing women to have sex against her will. She was the one who misdirected, I am just defending my view. I am suggesting that women voluntarily take care of their husbands sexual needs and not abuse their right to refuse. Oh what an asshole am I.
I am also aware that there are a lot of guys out there who are lousy in the sack. I teach men to do it better, be more loving and affectionate and give more and better foreplay and when it comes to orgasm, it should be ladies first. Again what an asshole am I.
I am not a homophobe, I am not afraid of homosexuals or lesbians, I don’t advocate for denying rights to anyone. The only thing I believe is that gays and lesbians should be entitled to civil unions similar to marriage as does Obama. With that I am out of here.
Hey there dickwad….at least have the courage of your own convictions. Not only are you a complete asshat, you don’t even have enough fortitude to stand there and say: Yep, I said it and I meant it……
Coward. Little slimy creeping piece of subterranean coward. Grow a pair of some version of reproductive organs and act like an adult.
“The reason that I brought up hetero sex was Fannie took one of my posts out of context and claimed that I believe in forcing women to have sex against her will.”
Oh no you don’t, John.
You have made it abundantly clear that, for the sake of preserving a marriage, you believe that an unwilling wife should not withhold sex from her husband. As you say:
“You feminists should rewrite the marriage vows where you promise to let your husband ‘have and hold you’ (a eupemism for sex) to I will only have sex with you when I feel like it. …
When women turn their husbands down for sex, it makes him feel unloved, unworthy and worthless. Whenever she forces him to masturbate alone, it breeds real resentment for the woman. Men get the bulk of their sexual needs met through sex with their wives. Women would not think of denying one of their children of a hug if they felt the need, but have no problem denying their husbands nurturing and affection.
Image if you gave him sex 4 times a week ( and I can hear all the feminists wailing as they read this) and the act lasted a half hour. That is two hours or slightly more than 1% of your time in the week….
Love is based in giving not refusing to give.”
You continually say that a “feminist”wife can withhold sex from her husband as though not having sex when she doesn’t want to is a bad thing. You keep showing this sickening bitterness about the fact that women can be sexual gatekeepers in hetero relationships.
Perhaps we are using different definitions of force, here, but non-physical force is often used to rape women. For instance, you may oppose a man using physical force to rape a woman, but your “moral commandment” of “love is based in giving not refusing to give” is a disgusting, emotionally-manipulative tactic to make a woman feel unloving and like a shitty wife for not having sex when she doesn’t want to. Through the authority of your “marriage coach” status, you attempt to exert control over women’s behavior with respect to sexual relations and guilt them into “having sex” when they don’t want to. By citing statistics about divorce, you seek to compel women to “consent” to sex that they do not wish to have.
I absolutely think that you advocate for forcing women to have sex against their will.
If you take Big Time Offense at people calling you out for saying that unwilling women should “have sex” with their husbands, then stop using your professional status to say unwilling women should have sex with their husbands.
If you’re not going to revise your opinions, then at least have the courage to stand behind your convictions.
Pingback: In case you’ve missed me… |
Thank you. Thank you so fucking much. You are exactly the kind of ally that I, as a gay woman, want and need in my life.
Iris,
Cut the Roach some slack.
Maintaining internet access to whatever heavily-fortified rural bunker he lives in must take some doing.
Think about what he goes through every time some groundhog chews through the cable of his camouflaged home satellite dish.
Just removing the sandbags from around the secret door must take an hour…
Then he’s got to cover himself with branches and mud while snaking along the ground, lest the black UN helicopters spot him and send a Freemasonic hit squad to take him out…
Only to finally get across the field and realize that the dish is fine – he just forget to pay the ISP bill. Or did he? Maybe his bank has been taken over by “them.” You know “them”, right?
Fnord.
No.
I think this conversation needs some background music…
*NSFW* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0 *NSFW*
If homosexuality is a choice, then I’d like to ask those heteros who believe that (particularly those religious heteros who believe homosexuality is a sin), when did you CHOOSE be straight? If it’s a choice, then there had to be a conscious decision on your part to become hetero. And if a decision had to be made, then you had to have at least a slight proclivity towards homosexuality. *GASP!* So I’ll ask again, when did you CHOOSE to be hetero? When did you decide that a penis or vagina (whatever your same sex), though it held some titilation and curiosity for you, you decided that you’d rather play for the other team.
What? It wasn’t a choice for you? It just was? Really? So if that’s the way you were born, then your sexuality was predetermined for you. So if sexuality is predetermined, then homosexuality would fall into that category. Hmm…BINGO! It’s NOT a choice. People are born straight or gay. And if they’re BORN THAT WAY, that’s the way GOD designed them. And if GOD designed them that way, then HE obviously doesn’t have an issue with it therefore homosexuals ARE God’s children as HE designed them. So why would he send his beloved flock who are the way HE designed them to hell? For something GOD did to them? Hmm, I don’t think so.
No one deserves to die for their sexuality. Period.
John, there might be a lot of male pedophiles who have a taste for little boys but that doesn’t mean that most gay men are pedophiles. NAMBLA and Catholic priests aren’t statistics. That doesn’t even prove that most pedophiles prefer boys over girls. Is that what you believe? Why? Because it happened to you? I’m not saying you’re wrong. I don’t know so I’d like to see those stats, please.
I’d also like to you consider that your view is skewed by your past trauma, which you haven’t worked through. Every time you use the word feminist, you treat it like a derogatory word. It’s not nasty or evil. It’s not what is responsible for your being sexually abused. So why do you treat it with such disdain?
It makes you come off as anti-woman and resentful that after ALL of human history, women have finally come into their own and have embraced their power. Why does seem that threaten you?
Angie, you asked for stats concerning sexual abuse of children. I happened to listen to a radio transmission of german “Deutschlandradio”, which is a very high quality radio programm. The link to the script is :
There they state:
I think I messed up with the html-tags, sorry. Or is it the board program which can’t handle an “href” tag? Anyway, most of my writing doesn’t appear on the post, and I didn’t save anything prior to posting
Emily, is there a chance you could make the rest of my post visible?
Hey Angie, I wondered why you had not gotten involved on here. You are the only reason that I have decided to respond to this post
Let me start with my problem with feminists. I don’t even have a problem with all feminists. I am all for equal rights for women. I will be the first to admit that feminism was a necessary movement for women to be treated equally. The problem that I have with many feminists is exempliefied on here by all of the hate speech and bigotry displayed. Most feminists espouse multi culturalism except when it comes to Chrisitians and conservatives then try and shout them down. It is even evidenced against fellow women who are prolife .
What far too many women want is absolute dominance. Let me give you and example. In Saint Paul MN the feminists took the fire department to court claiming that the physical standards were designed to exclude women. The standards were designed to exclude men who were not strong enough to do the job, part of which included doing a fireman’s carry which consisted of pickiing up a 200 lb unconcious man and throwing him over y0ur shoulder and running down a flight of stairs. The courts made the fire department dilute the standards so that two women could now drag that man down the steps puting all 3 lives at stake. One of the battle cries of the feminists was equal pay for equal work. Now they have two women doing the work of one man and giving them equal pay. That is absolute dominance and political correctness run amok.
Feminists demand the right to say no at whim and abuse that privilege with the men in their lives. I work to put couples back together, especially for the sake of the children. Sex is one of the big 3 that couples fight about. I suggested that women voluntarily give their husbands more sex and all I got was hate speech claiming that I wanted to force women to have sex against their will. I would suggest that no one likes to change a dirty diaper, but you take care of the babie’s needs. Following the same logic women use with the men in their lives, women could demand not to change the babie’s diaper.
If I had been a woman and confessed to being sexually abused by a man, the women would fawn all over that women. Because I was abused by a priest, I got no sympathy, in fact the undercurrent was that I deserved it because of my religious beliefs. Some even said I would be better off dead. There is no equality when it comes to boys being victimized by gays on here.
Obama’s education czar who is a mandatory first responder did not report a teacher sexually abusing a boy, did not even occur to him. Pereze Hilton called the beauty contesstant a cunt and all manner of vile names because she siad that she did not believe in gay marriage, but in civil unions. The feminists did not come to her defense. The feminists did not come to the defense of Sarah Palin when she was being savaged in the campaign. This is the height of hypocrisy to me. So yes, I have huge problems with many feminists. Maureen Dowd said in her column
with the NY Times that the only reason for men in today’s society is to be sperm donors. Could you imagine the outrage by feminists if some male columnists would say that the only reason for women in today’s society is to reproduce kids. Many feminists are outright bigots and sexism is not a single sex characteristic, it is called misandry when women do it.
I can’t give you statistics over homosexual abuse of boys, you know that it is impossible to truly quantify. I know that there is hetero sexual abuse of girls as well, but as I have previously said, they are not banding together to lobby Congress to decriminialize sex between men and girls.
I am not for discriminating against women or gays, but I have prolblems with the militant bigoted groups.
I appreciate your assertive tone as always.
Blessing on you and yours
John Wilder
Ahem.
The genitals that you want to give a male person access to are attached to a living, thinking, breathing HUMAN BEING who happens to have the right to give or withhold the use of same. They are not a detachable body part separate from the person.
Therefore, the person attached to the genitalia has ALL the rights concerning use thereof.
Angie, here is the definition of bigotry from Wikipedia. Clearly the bulk of the comments on here were highly bigoted and miltantly stated with no remorse. This the problem with many liberals, they see themselves as morally superior and everyone else is inferior FUCKWADS.
You have never exhibited that attitude to me in previous conversations or this one.
Bigotry From Wikipedia,
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, various mental disorders, or religion.
Angie
Even psychologists have not determined whether it is nature or nurture which causes homosexualiy. I knew a gay christian man who chose not to have sex because his desire was for men. He exercised his choice to be a dedicated Christian. God created us as complex beings with a free will. WE all struggle with sinful urges. There have been people that I was so furious with, that I could have killed them. I made a choice not to and overcame my urges. God decreed that homosexual sex is sin as is sex with animals and incest as well. Would you argue that sex between animals and sex with your dad should also be included too or your brother, or your uncle, cousin etc?
John,
“Hey Angie, I wondered why you had not gotten involved on here. You are the only reason that I have decided to respond to this post.”
Which is why you first responded to Emily, and the first line you wrote was an odious stupidity inferring her support of child sexual abuse?
Pull my other leg, John. It plays music. Now back to it…
John, if you say something dumb and get blasted for it, you are not the victim of bigotry. You are not the victim of anything. Get down off the cross. We can find better uses for the wood.
Your beliefs about the wrongness of homosexuality are superstitious, Bronze Age nonsense. The cultural mindset and behavior resulting from them, historically and presently, are genuinely harmful to gay people.
They have also done real harm to YOU, as demonstrated by your inability to make your case, or even make sense.
This whole “faith” business is nothing but people giving themselves license to abandon reason, logic and perceptible reality and believe in magic. One end result is that sooner or later – usually sooner – the faithful cannot tell the difference between magical incantations and empirical facts.
This is why the entire religious case against full social equality for gay people (parenting, marriage, child adoption, etc.) consists of quoting their various sacred scrolls and reactionary appeals to “tradition.”
When you say
“There have been people that I was so furious with, that I could have killed them. I made a choice not to and overcame my urges.”
you elide the relevant differences between homosexual versus homicidal desires which make a complete hash of your position.
When you continue with
“God decreed that homosexual sex is sin as is sex with animals and incest as well. Would you argue that sex between animals and sex with your dad should also be included too or your brother, or your uncle, cousin etc?”
you miss the point by a country mile.
That point, John, is to stop and think about WHY homosexual sex is included with those other things – along with what kinds of cloth to wear, food to eat, how to treat menstruating women, etc.
Is it all “sin” because Magic Sky Daddy said it? Because people claiming to speak for MSD said he told them to write it down?
John, let me ask you plainly: Do you know the difference between religious proselytizing and factual arguments?
Do you understand that simply stating “my religion condemns homosexuality” doesn’t prove anything? That such declarations might well serve as reasons to condemn your religion?
Pingback: Condemning The Very Idea Of Sex As Sin - ErosBlog: The Sex Blog
First time visit. Quite a good rant. I have a comment in response…
“All things in moderation, including moderation.” Your anger is well placed and the level of control is appropriate. I applaud the post, and will be back.
Did you miss the word “irrationality” in your wikipedia definition of a bigot John?
There’s nothing irrational about believing your attitude toward homosexuality makes you a fuckwad.
And your posts here clearly indicate you fit all the criteria of the definition you’ve posted.
Oh, and have you begun to pay off your credit card debts yet, or do you believe taking responsibility for your own financial recklessness to be a sin as well?
Shawn,
With both Old and New Testaments, Christians are used to keeping two sets of books…
Ah, I see while I was away, John Wilder returned to fling a lot more poo in many directions. Where to even begin? With apologies to everyone for continuing the derail, I’ll start with feminism.
Let me guess: they don’t believe they should “give” you sex when they are unwilling?
Just because you think Sarah Palin is a feminist doesn’t make it true.
Except for that one pesky little detail: bodily autonomy. Women need to STFU and “give” men sex when they don’t want to.
And yet women still are not treated equally (bodily autonomy again comes to mind). If you actually valued equality for women, you would be a feminist.
We were talking about the hate speech and bigotry spewed by Christians at gay kids. You came in here with smug condescension, accused Emily of supporting NAMBLA, made grandiose claims about your IQ (grandiosity is nearly always accompanied by its flip side – whiny martyrdom – and you did not disappoint), and capped it all off by ranting in support of some nasty god that damns gay kids to hell, as if this were an actual fact and not a delusion. It is the very problem Emily railed against. You don’t like being called out on your hateful dogma? Lose the hateful dogma. Yet you explicitly defended it, and then expected respect.
.
FAIL. Conservatism is antithetical to feminism. Liberal Christianity is not. Why should feminists not “shout down” the conservatism that threatens all of the progress they have made? Why is it okay for you to “shout down” feminists in this thread? (Hint: it is.)
The majority of feminists are pro-choice. Are you actually under the impression that being a feminist means supporting all women at all times, no matter how misogynist they are? Oh, wait, then I better hurry if I want to keep my feminist cred! I need to go donate all my money to Sarah Palin’s PAC, Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, and Concerned Women for America.
And men never, ever want absolute dominance? If you are talking about controlling, domineering personalities , then yes, some women have them too – and many such women that I know personally are conservative. (And Christian.) Feminism is about equality and partnership, not dominance and submission. Unless the couple is into that sort of thing sexually, of course.
You rage about a court decision that apparently found a fire department’s standards discriminatory, and then pronounce that”That is absolute dominance and political correctness run amok.” Is it really? I don’t know the details of the case, and given your track record here of making unsupported pronouncements that turn out to be false, I am not taking your word for it. But let’s say it’s true, and exactly as you describe it.
A few bad court decisions are singled out in right wing media, with nary a mention of the many thousands of sex discrimination suits that have actual merit. If sexual discrimination in hiring were not ubiquitous, far fewer suits would be filed – and thus there would be far fewer meritless cases and bad decisions. If that were indeed what you wanted, and you feel this strongly about it, you would be supporting feminists who are working tirelessly to end discrimination.
I see: when a woman (feminist or not) says no, it’s just a “whim.” And an abuse of a “privilege” they have been graciously been given by their owners – er, I mean husbands, husbands. What a viciously nasty view you have of women – and men, for that matter.
Suggesting women “give” their husbands sex when they do not want to have sex is telling women to have sex against their will. It is not “hate speech” to point out that this is the case, and how vile this view of yours truly is.
Once again you have equated sex to a woman’s household chore, and a very unpleasant one at that. How you could possibly be a marriage counselor is beyond me and my non-genius IQ.
What. The. Fuck. Are you actually positing that feminists on this thread are not outraged at sexual abuse of minors (of any gender) by priests, have no sympathy for victims, and implied that you deserved it because you are Christian? Citation fucking needed, John. If you cannot point to that citation in this thread John, I submit that your grasp of reality is so tenuous, your martyr complex so advanced, and your delusions so profuse that you need to seek professional help for advanced psychosis immediately. Monsters treat victims of sexual abuse that way, and I’m sure I speak for others as well when I say I resent being lumped in with monsters.
Further, no one said you’d be better off dead. You obviously would not be better off, because you’d be dead. Emily’s original sentiment was that the world will be a better place when hateful religious homophobes spouting off about sin and hell for gay kids are dead. You came in here spouting off about sin and hell for gay kids. Do the math. (Hint: you are not the world.)
And that was wrong.
Feminists believe in equality John. Civil unions are not equal to marriage. Again, do you really think being a feminist means supporting and defending all women at all times, no matter how antithetical to equality their views are? What would be actually hypocritical is feminists supporting and defending these women with whom they vehemently disagree, simply because they are women.
With straw feminists as far as I can tell.
First, I have no idea why Maureen Down is a New York Times columnist. She repeatedly makes stupid pronouncements with no support or basis in reality. (Sound familiar?) Second, there are indeed males who say that the only purpose for women is to reproduce. Some go even further than that and say that the reproduction aspect is optional: women exist solely to serve mens’ sexual “needs.” (Sound familiar?)
And there are men who are outright misogynists; and both are wrong. However one of those groups is much, much larger than the other – and that one has the Christian bible to back it up.
Your ignorance is simply astounding. Homosexuals do not abuse boys. Pedophiles abuse boys – and girls. Abuse statistics are indeed available and not difficult to find should you wish to educate yourself before making more stupid, uninformed, false statements. (As if.)
And there you go again with NAMBLA! John, is there any chance whatsoever that an infinitesimally tiny, fringe group of pedophiles will succeed in their efforts and Congress will decriminalize pedophilia? Really?
I am not for discriminating against conservatives or Christians, but I have problems with the militant bigoted individuals among them.
More later.
Again, Iris is my Internet Hero(ine).
(Although, as a Conservative who has no problem regarding a woman as equal – or even superior, if she’s better than me at something – I cannot agree with “FAIL. Conservatism is antithetical to feminism.” But this is a quibble. Iris rocks.)
Iris, thank you for being honest and forever dispelling the myth that feminists want equality for all women, you just want it for far left liberal women. You don’t even want equality, you want dominance as in the case of the Saint Paul Fire Department. I don’t see you calling Obama a fuckwad, nor did I see Perez Hilton calling Obama names because he believes in civil unions. How about some conswistency?
John, once again your fevered imaginings are making you look like a deranged person.
This is literally insane. I am not the spokesperson for feminism – and neither is Perez fucking Hilton. (?!) Feminists do not support sexist slurs like “cunt” when used against anybody. Right now, John, WCF, a feminist organization I belong to, is currently sending regular email updates detailing the sexist crap female candidates – including right-wing nuts – are putting up with every day, because it hurts all women, so I really have no idea what you are talking about here. I can and do criticize Carrie Prejean and Sarah Palin for their hateful ideas and inexcusable ignorance – without sexism. Just because you didn’t see it on Faux News or World Nut Daily doesn’t mean it isn’t happening every day.
I’m beginning to suspect this “dominance” thing you keep throwing around is purely projection on your part. I did not defend the fire department decision. See, you invented that in your head. Go back and read what I wrote, but this time ignore the voices in your head.
Obama is a fuckwad on the issue of gay marriage. Mmmkay?
I see that Perez Hilton has replaced NAMBLA as your new bogeyman. I have absolutely no idea what Perez Hilton’s opinion is of Obama (and, I suspect, neither do you). If Perez Hilton holds Carrie Prejean and Obama to different standards on the same issue, then that is indeed inconsistent. But I have no idea why you think Perez Hilton is some paragon of feminism or liberalism, and we all agree with everything he does and says.
I have addressed in detail nearly every single one of your statements about feminism – not in an effort to educate you, of course, because that is clearly impossible. You are apparently incapable of basic reading comprehension, understanding feminism, or even the simple, basic concept of equality. (Hint: it is not the same thing as “dominance.”)
But perhaps now you might do me the courtesy of addressing a single point of mine? Start with this one:
By the way, I looked at your blog. Holy fucking shit John. (By the way, John reposted Emily’s entire OP and much of the comment section, unformatted, under the heading: “Liberals Regularly Practice Hate Speech Against Conservatives.”) Finding global warming denialism and incoherent rambling there wasn’t a surprise of course, given what I’ve seen here. But John, your lingerie fetish and pronouncements about what men want sexually are not universal. You are simply projecting when you pontificate as if they are. But this takes the cake:
Women, If You Want a Happy Marriage, Love Your Husband Like a Dog
This is John Wilder giving marriage advice. No further comment is necessary.
@GeorgeFromNY – My apologies, I should have been more precise. Social conservatism, at least in the U.S., is antithetical to feminism (pretty much by definition), and to gay rights. Given what I’ve seen you support here it doesn’t appear that this is how you are identifying, but I could be wrong. A case can certainly be made that fiscal conservatism is not antithetical to feminism, at least in theory. In practice, however…well, that’s a discussion I might really enjoy having with you some time.
And now weighing in from north of the border – land of Mounties, snow and ‘horror of horrors’ universal health care. (at this point the typical US conservative has decided I am a godless communist) Firstly – consider my views to be on the right side of the spectrum (for a Canadian) and am a practicing Catholic. And yet some of my friends are gay and frankly my response to any bullying – against gays or purple alien exchange students from Alpha Centauri (I am being deliberately facetious in an attempt to make a point) – is to want to subject them to a taste of their own medicine, so I am perhaps not the best voice of moderation. Found the discourse interesting, after linking from ErosBlog – good rants are hard to find.
I just wanted to offer one comment about use of words – some people have used ‘faith’ as the cause/justification for what can best be described as delusional views (being gay sends you to hell??? that’s the same as saying eating bacon sends a Jew to hell). Fiath is an unwavering belief in something, such as faith in believing that someday the Toronto Maple Leafs will win the Stanley Cup (inside hockey joke – insert Detroit Lions joke if an NFL fan). Religion is the set of rituals, practices and teachings that have arisen out of a particular cultural desire to explain what may be inexplicable – and yes, most religions have some rather silly rules, but for much of human history it has been the main provider of ‘structure’ in society and most were for a particular reason (dietary laws primarily relate to problems of hygienic preparation, not because ‘GOD SAID SO’) that was best enshrined in the one sort of universal code for the culture – think of them as the equivalent of the FDA.
By the way John, Japan is not mainly athiest – atheism is a lack of belief in a ‘higher power’, last time I checked Shintoism accepted that concept. And that is my one response to someone who is clearly set in their ways and unlikely to change. No, strike that – if your marriage is working right, sex is ‘shared’, there is no ‘giving’ without desire. And did you ever think that perhaps the reason sex frequency goes down after kids is that Mom is a little tired from doing your cooking, cleaning, child raising – and going to work. Welcome to the modern world, remember the 50s you seem to long for hid a very sordid underbelly of things.
Woof, woof, John.
Now go pay off your credit card debts, deadbeat.
Dishonesty, especially in financial matters, ruins more marriages than a loss in the frequency of sex.
Do you ever mention this in your “marriage counselling”, John?
Sometimes it is best to converse calmly and politely.
And sometimes it’s not.
“Almond Joy’s got nuts, Mounds don’t…”
Stop hounding him, Shawn.
heh heh
Pingback: Some additional items regarding bullying and bigots « Alchemical Thoughts
Say it sister! Awesome post!
Thank you, Emily. I’ll be reposting the heckwad out this.
Pingback: Time to Say it Straight | The Dad Poet
Shawn
As usual, you can’t trust the liberal press. They neglected to mention in the story that I was robbed of all my cash and my car. This left me homeless as I had just moved to Florida and had not established a residency. I worked my way out of it but it took a couple of years, six months of which had me homeless. It was no fault of my own.
John thinks there’s a liberal media in the U.S. LOL.
I suspect more than a few people posting on this thread (including myself) have experienced devastating financial situations (and of course due to conservative economic policies in the U.S., it’s doubly devastating because there is no meaningful social safety net for the working poor). And I also suspect no one here would lay blame on someone who, through no fault of their own, is victim of such circumstances. However, that is not what anyone’s talking about here with respect to John. On display once again is that arrogant sense of entitlement, as well as a flippant, cavalier remorselessness for walking away from $12k in debt as evidenced here:
Honorable people honor their debts. Narcissistic wankers? Not so much.
Colin
I don’t want to go back to the fifties and most men that I know including myself are more evvolved, help out in the housekeeping department. I changed dirty diapers, did laundry, did all the cooking and grocery shopping and did the yard work and kept the cars up.
John Wilder