It Get's Better Project

[Ziggurat]

I think you are constructing a strawman here; the issue is not that murder and rape are sins that fundamentalists allow

I never said they were. But elipse said that homosexuality was basically the worst sin for fundamentalist Christians, which means that you think they consider rape and murder to be less severe. But there's simply no evidence that they do. That's not a straw man, that's what he said. Maybe that's not what he meant, but if he didn't mean it, he needs to improve his writing skills.

Did you say the same about miscegenation when those dammed blacks starting marrying white girls? Maybe if they just toned down their blackness right?

There's more than a little irony here. After complaining about a strawman that wasn't a strawman at all, but which you misrepresented as a strawman, you now construct an actual strawman. I said nothing about toning down gayness. And do you really think things like promiscuity are inherent to gayness? Because if not, then reducing it or speaking out against it isn't toning down gayness. And if it is, well, you've got bigger problems than me.

Have you considered why you think prudery is inherently better?

I never said prudery was inherently better. But the things prudes advocate would reduce the spread of HIV, and more prudery would improve relations with fundamentalist Christians. Again, you can decide for yourself if you think the benefits outweigh any costs. One can conclude that it doesn't without concluding that there are no benefits.

two points;

1) You seem to assume that the community prudish values are desirable. This is a POV from the comfortable majority, but why is this correct - because it makes you feel right?

You seem to assume that I am a prude. This is not a correct assumption.

2) Are there Really NO visible gay prudes?

I don't think anyone on your list qualifies, or if they do, I haven't seen or heard of activities which would qualify them. I already detailed why in the case of Maddow, but you seem to have ignored what's already been covered.

 

[Ziggurat]

My hope, and I think this is largely true, is that the anti-gay attitude is generational. No behavior on the part of gays will change the attitude of bigots.

I agree that it's largely generational. But fundamentalist christianity isn't: it will outlast this current generation, there will be new generations of fundamentalist Christians. And I think that those new generations are amenable to influence, particularly if that influence doesn't conflict with their other beliefs.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm a bit fuzzy on the details here, but aren't gays all over the country working very hard to be in state recognized monogamous relationships?

Indeed. But the grounds on which they appeal speak to a different audience. The focus has been on "equal rights", which is exactly what liberals want to hear, and it motivates them. But it doesn't speak to conservative Christians, in part because the language is so associated with liberal movements. Like so much in life, arguments don't always get evaluated on their merits, the associations weigh heavily too, and those associations don't help among conservative Christians. If you want to make headway among that group, then the focus should NOT be on equal rights, but on creating responsibilities for gays. Make marriage an institution for gays, and you create social pressures and social networks to support monogamy, decrease promiscuity, encourage responsible behavior, etc. While all that may seem obvious to you, almost nobody promoting gay marriage is emphasizing that, certainly not in any significant effort to sell the idea to Christians. If you want to sell gay marriage to conservative Christians, you need an argument that's associated with their concerns. The argument is there, but it's not really being used.

I mean, what is more prude than wanting to be married?

Not much. But you need to sell it as such, and it isn't being sold as such. Arguments don't make themselves.

 

[bookitty]

Indeed. But the grounds on which they appeal speak to a different audience. The focus has been on "equal rights", which is exactly what liberals want to hear, and it motivates them. But it doesn't speak to conservative Christians, in part because the language is so associated with liberal movements. Like so much in life, arguments don't always get evaluated on their merits, the associations weigh heavily too, and those associations don't help among conservative Christians. If you want to make headway among that group, then the focus should NOT be on equal rights, but on creating responsibilities for gays. Make marriage an institution for gays, and you create social pressures and social networks to support monogamy, decrease promiscuity, encourage responsible behavior, etc. While all that may seem obvious to you, almost nobody promoting gay marriage is emphasizing that, certainly not in any significant effort to sell the idea to Christians. If you want to sell gay marriage to conservative Christians, you need an argument that's associated with their concerns. The argument is there, but it's not really being used.



Not much. But you need to sell it as such, and it isn't being sold as such. Arguments don't make themselves.

Yes, and if scientists were just a little more willing to toss a splash of goddidit into their reports, we might be able to get the fundies to let up on evolution. Or not.

Why should the homosexual community put aside the idea of equal rights in order to pander to a minority which believes in limited rights for all people? In essence you are suggesting that gays admit that they are not equal to the fundies but instead should get respect for sharing some nebulous social value. That's absurd.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why should the homosexual community put aside the idea of equal rights in order to pander to a minority which believes in limited rights for all people?

I didn't say they should give up on equal rights. I said that that argument wasn't persuasive with a particular crowd, and that a different argument for doing the same thing would be more effective. Why do you care which argument gets used if the objective is unchanged?

In essence you are suggesting that gays admit that they are not equal to the fundies but instead should get respect for sharing some nebulous social value. That's absurd.

That is absurd. It's also not what I said OR suggested.

 

[JoeB]

It seems to really have some legs. Ran across a clear reference/endorsement of it on a sports blog I love, not a place I expected to see mention of it.

http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2010/10/tony-dungy-would-like-to-remind-you%E2%80%A6-it-gets-worse.html
Very NSFW language.

(backstory: Tony Dungy is a very publicly devout Christian former NFL coach, who has spoken at at least one meeting of an organization with a stated anti-gay agenda, but I'm unaware of any anti-gay statements from him personally. Like all KSK's characters they are exaggerated for comic effect. Rex Ryan is the current coach of the New York Jets with a reputation for being foul mouthed and irreverent.)

 

[TraneWreck]

I agree that it's largely generational. But fundamentalist christianity isn't: it will outlast this current generation, there will be new generations of fundamentalist Christians. And I think that those new generations are amenable to influence, particularly if that influence doesn't conflict with their other beliefs.

Fundamentalist Christianity will most certainly change. In fact, I would be willing to bet that fundamentalist Christians under the age of 25 are more comfortable with homosexuality than liberals over the age of 65. They'll still condemn it as sinful, but it's a part of their life.

Just look at how their attitudes have changed with respect to divorce, birth control, and artificial insemination over the past quarter century.

I'm not saying they're progressive on those subjects, but they're also no breathing fire about them.

 

[bencg]

I never said they were. But elipse said that homosexuality was basically the worst sin for fundamentalist Christians, which means that you think they consider rape and murder to be less severe. But there's simply no evidence that they do. That's not a straw man, that's what he said. Maybe that's not what he meant, but if he didn't mean it, he needs to improve his writing skills.

Whilst it might be true that if we asked 100 fundies to rank the sins in worst order they would rank murder and rape as worse than homosexuality - I wonder what the results would be if asked to identify the 'worst sin'?
I don't know the answer but its certainly true that there are more fundies railing against homosexuality then there are railing against rape and murder, if it isn't the thing they think is worst they certainly make it easy to get that impression.

There's more than a little irony here. After complaining about a strawman that wasn't a strawman at all, but which you misrepresented as a strawman, you now construct an actual strawman. I said nothing about toning down gayness. And do you really think things like promiscuity are inherent to gayness? Because if not, then reducing it or speaking out against it isn't toning down gayness. And if it is, well, you've got bigger problems than me.

Well okay I'll give you that, I created a strawman, sorry bout that. I was getting a fundy apologist vibe from your post (disclaimer: I do not think you are a fundy apologist) and responded with more vitrol than thought. Btw, I don't think promiscuity is inherent to gayness. I also don't think this is the real issue fundies have with homosexuality; they are explicitly against gayness itself.

I never said prudery was inherently better. But the things prudes advocate would reduce the spread of HIV, and more prudery would improve relations with fundamentalist Christians. Again, you can decide for yourself if you think the benefits outweigh any costs. One can conclude that it doesn't without concluding that there are no benefits.

The prude approach to sex education is abstenance only; wait till marriage and no mention of condoms. This is not a realistic or pragmatic way to control the spread of HIV and compared to teaching ABC (abstain, be faithful, use condoms) is almost certainly more harmful in the real world.

You seem to assume that I am a prude. This is not a correct assumption.

Okay. But I wasn't assuming you were a prude, I was assuming that you are advocating prudery over permissiveness.

I don't think anyone on your list qualifies, or if they do, I haven't seen or heard of activities which would qualify them. I already detailed why in the case of Maddow, but you seem to have ignored what's already been covered.

It's not my list. If we want to debate who is or isnt a prude we need a definition, the list seems to be people who are not explicitly permissive (more or less). If you define prude as anyone living a non permissive lifestyle then certainly many in the list qualify. If being a prude means advocating social conservatism then its a bigger ask as they are the political enemies of gay people generally, define prude and then we can argue the toss.


Overall I think your argument is flawed, fundies are not against gays because they are permissive but because they explicitly think homosexuality is sinful. And regardless of whether fundies think gayness is worse than murder its hard to deny that they are a lot more vocal about gays than murderers.

What needs changing is not the permissiveness of gays, which as you have alluded to is actually not all that permissive in reality, but the attitudes of fundies. Most gay people are not SF pride carnival goers but just ordinary people living private lives, why should they have to appoint spokespeople to advocate prudery in order to pander to the prejudices of fundies?

Fundamentally the issue is not permisiveness, even if this is a stated objection of fundies its a smokescreen. I contend that permissive straight culture is massively more prevelant in our society and media than permissive gay culture is. So why are fundies more focused on gays than straights? I think if we magically made all gays prudes overnight then fundies wouldn't stop hating teh gay, it would still be sinful.

 

[bencg]

Indeed. But the grounds on which they appeal speak to a different audience. The focus has been on "equal rights", which is exactly what liberals want to hear, and it motivates them. But it doesn't speak to conservative Christians, in part because the language is so associated with liberal movements. Like so much in life, arguments don't always get evaluated on their merits, the associations weigh heavily too, and those associations don't help among conservative Christians. If you want to make headway among that group, then the focus should NOT be on equal rights, but on creating responsibilities for gays. Make marriage an institution for gays, and you create social pressures and social networks to support monogamy, decrease promiscuity, encourage responsible behavior, etc. While all that may seem obvious to you, almost nobody promoting gay marriage is emphasizing that, certainly not in any significant effort to sell the idea to Christians. If you want to sell gay marriage to conservative Christians, you need an argument that's associated with their concerns. The argument is there, but it's not really being used.

You have a point in that fundies need to understand all this and maybe there is a way to get this across that no-one is doing. But none of this is a change in gay culture; gays already support monogamy and responsibility. You seem to think its the responisiblity of gays to change the mind of fundies, perhaps, but the greater responsibility goes to people who have bad-think to start with.

You say "almost nobody promoting gay marriage is emphasizing that" - but what can gay marriage be advocating if not monogamy and responsiblity? Anyone who takes an argument for gay marriage as an argument for promiscuity is being stupid, if they actually thought about it.

Why shouldnt conservative christians be the ones who have to understand this?

 

[Cavemonster]

What do you guy's think?

Coming from a video background, I highly suggest you re-record it.
I know it includes some diffuicult things to talk about, but if you want it to be an effective communication, there are a few simple things you can change to make it much better.

1) Video angle. Shooting from a low angle makes you look odd, it makes the video look less well thought out and it distracts from your content more than you probably think. Make your camera/webcam more or less level with your eyeline.

2) Buzzing sound. There is some sort of annoying electronic buzzing sound in the background. Make sure you record far away from whatever is making that sound, it is very distracting and makes the video hard to get through.

3) Rehearse. Have a clear, scripted message. It will make your key points much easier to follow and understand, you'll be able to speak more confidently.

4) Don't ask internet strangers to contact you personally. It's a kind and wonderful sentiment, but in this context it's innapropriate and a little creepy. Instead, just mention the many free hotlines like the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT) Youth Support Line 800-850-8078, online communities and other places individuals can get help and support. Adults as individuals asking teens to contact them personally is a huge no-no.

5) Keep it short.

If you do all that, I guarantee you'll have a much better and much more useful video.

 

[Ziggurat]

But none of this is a change in gay culture

I'm not saying it is. But I am saying it's a change in how gay culture presents itself. Like I said before, I'm sure there are gay prudes. Why wouldn't there be?

You seem to think its the responisiblity of gays to change the mind of fundies

Responsibility? No, that's not the right word at all. I think the gay community might benefit from doing so. That doesn't mean there's any obligation.

You say "almost nobody promoting gay marriage is emphasizing that" - but what can gay marriage be advocating if not monogamy and responsiblity?

The fact that something seems obvious to you doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. Now, maybe I'm wrong, maybe people are emphasizing that stuff and I just haven't seen it. In which case, just point it out. But the fact that you haven't done so suggests that you haven't noticed such an approach either.

Anyone who takes an argument for gay marriage as an argument for promiscuity is being stupid, if they actually thought about it.

I don't think that's enough. The argument for gay marriage shouldn't simply be that it's not pro-promiscuity, it should be that it's anti-promiscuity.

Why shouldnt conservative christians be the ones who have to understand this?

You can complain about how unfair it is that they don't recognize all this stuff on their own, or you can try to do something to persuade them. Life is unfair. We are constrained by reality, not by ideals.

 

[Ziggurat]

Whilst it might be true that if we asked 100 fundies to rank the sins in worst order they would rank murder and rape as worse than homosexuality - I wonder what the results would be if asked to identify the 'worst sin'?
I don't know the answer but its certainly true that there are more fundies railing against homosexuality then there are railing against rape and murder, if it isn't the thing they think is worst they certainly make it easy to get that impression.

They don't rail against rape and murder because they're not worried that these things will become accepted. They're so vile that they are almost universally condemned. What you will hear them railing against are not the worst sins, but the sins most in danger of becoming accepted and becoming more widespread.

Btw, I don't think promiscuity is inherent to gayness. I also don't think this is the real issue fundies have with homosexuality; they are explicitly against gayness itself.

I understand that. And I agree. And while they might pretty much never change their minds about that for doctrinal reasons, there's no reason to think that they can't become more tolerant of the existence of such sin. A big part of the stridency comes from misconceptions about homosexuality. The fact that many think it's a choice, and that you can turn someone gay, is a major issue. The sin of homosexuality becomes sort of like a disease, it can spread, and so they have a duty to stop it spreading. But if that misconception changes, if they come to understand that it's not a choice, that you can't turn someone gay, it becomes much less threatening. It becomes more like alcoholism: it may still be a sin to be condemned, but nobody worries about alcoholism spreading. There's lots of doctrinal support for accepting sinners, but in practice it won't happen unless the sinner is seen as non-threatening. That's not the case right now, but I think it can be.

Now, you can TELL people all this stuff about the nature of homosexuality, but it doesn't work. For all sorts of complex psychological reasons, logical debate and analysis aren't what move public opinion. Emotions are much more relevant, and trust is key. And fundamentalist Christians don't trust liberals, and liberals are the ones who keep telling them this stuff.

But they do trust prudes. Prudes are familiar, prudes are like them. If a gay person is a prude, then it can becomes emotionally apparent that they're not trying to spread homosexuality. And that whole line of thinking can start to get pried apart. But it takes them seeing gay people whose attitudes they can relate to in order to start doing that. Otherwise, they're just not going to listen. That part isn't a feature of fundamentalist Christianity, BTW, it's just a feature of human psychology.

The prude approach to sex education is abstenance only; wait till marriage and no mention of condoms. This is not a realistic or pragmatic way to control the spread of HIV

To the extent that many people don't want to listen to prudes, yes. But the actual practice of abstinence works wonderfully at preventing the spread of HIV. And people really can practice it, if they choose to.

It's not my list. If we want to debate who is or isnt a prude we need a definition

I already gave the definition I'm working with, earlier in the thread.

 

[elipse]

I see no evidence of this.
When's the last time anyone really fought for equal rights for murderers? Or demanded ant-bullying statutes for rapists? Etc, etc.

You might want to think about reformulating your argument, because as it stands now, this is simply absurd.

There's a reason I said sins, not crimes. I should have specified, perhaps, legal sins, but really, when christians say that everyone is a sinner they clearly don't mean that everyone is a criminal, so I thought you'd be able to cotton on to the point. Especially since I made a point of mentioning abortion, the OTHER legal sin that gets a lot of sturm unt drang. Sorry.

Yes, and transparently so. You have, in fact, doubled down on your earlier generalizations by simply making them more categorical and more extreme.

Nope, you just (willfully?) misunderstood me.

So now that I made it CRYSTAL clear that I meant "sins that are not also crimes," do you think it is a mischaracterization of fundamentalists?

What, you mean gay marriage? Yeah, they oppose that. Maybe it would help if, oh, I don't know, you could find a way to soften that opposition. Maybe allay some of their fears, at least enough that they don't bother turning up at the polls.

No, not just marriage. Adoption rights, too, and equal employment rights. And the whole point is that having high profile politically prudish gay people wouldn't do that at all. (Taking a stance on the sex lives of others is a political act in this country. I am specifying the kind of prude you mean because there has been some confusion. You explicitly don't count people who live as "prudes" but don't express outrage/chagrin/disapproval about the sex lives of others.)

Some of them do. But I bet you'd be surprised at how many wouldn't exclude gays.

Bet I wouldn't. What evidence are you basing your claim on? Actually, what is your claim in the first place? That a small minority are accepting? Okay, that I'd accept, but it's irrelevant to the point. That a significant number are accepting? In that case, bet I wouldn't. Oh, or did you mean "wouldn't exclude" to indicate "would allow homosexuals to continue to attend church, while directing anti-homosexual sermons at them, pushing their "pray away the gay" camps on them, and generally making them feel like a project to fix, one that won't be really accepted until it is fixed?" In that case, I would also not be surprised (well, maybe a little), but it doesn't do much for your case.

You missed the point, which is that YOU have prejudices, against fundamentalist Christians.

I sure do have "prejudices" against the actions that fundamentalist people take, and the society they are attempting to create politically. That's worlds away from the kind of prejudice we are speaking of. When a group of people are politically active as a block, it is not some sort of bigotry to talk about it, nor to decry it, nor to point out that it stems from religion.

And that isn't actually incompatible with what I'm suggesting, any more than being a straight prude is incompatible with heterosexuality.

No, being a personal prude is not incompatible in any way. Being a political prude is also not incompatible, but it is hypocritical.

Funny you should mention AIDS, because that's where the gay community could benefit from prudery. Promiscuity has a hell of a lot to do with the spread of HIV, in case you didn't notice.

No it doesn't. Having unsafe sex does. If everyone practiced safe sex and/or serosorted it wouldn't matter how many partners they had. Oh, and promiscuous lesbians are at very low risk for ANY sti.

If you want to expand the base of acceptance beyond what old strategies have achieved, then yes, considering something new is not exactly a strange concept.

I don't see adopting the repugnant and hypocritical strategy of judging others based on their own private sex lives as a winning strategy.

I'm not suggesting that the gay community needs to become uniformly prudish. But what message do you think it sends if there are NO visible gay prudes?

No visible gay political prudes, no. I think it sends the message that gay people don't tend to be hypocrites in this area.

Do you really think that helps get gays accepted? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, that might send a message that the community really doesn't share values with the public at large?

The public at large isn't politically prudish. A very vocal minority, that overlaps to a great extent with fundamentalist christians, is politically prudish. Homosexuals wouldn't be bringing their message in line with the majority of people. The majority of people, particularly in the younger generation, think the sex lives of others are none of their business. They may or may not be privately prudish themselves, but they're not politically prudish. So this would just be pandering to the people who hate homosexuals regardless of how many same-sex lovers they have. (I am not saying that all politically prudish people hate homosexuals. People who hate homosexuals, however, are gonna come almost exclusively from the group of people who give a damn what other people are doing with their junk, ie, the politically prudish.)

 

[elipse]

Exactly. That's why they were bad examples. Do I really need to explain the problem with using extremes to represent a group? Surely you don't think that the gay community should be characterized by its most extreme elements.

Fred Phelps is only extreme in where he chooses to protest, not in message. Thinking masturbation is a sin is pretty par for the course. But fine, if you don't like those examples, how 'bout this one:
Fundamentalists are very, very against abortion. It's a gold star issue for them. Anything that results in fewer abortions ought to be sooper-dooper a-okay with them, right?

Now, of course, no one is actually FOR abortion. No one wants the number of abortions to rise. So there are lots of organizations out there trying to lower the number of abortions, with things like education and promotion of safe sex. So there should be a meeting of the minds. When high schools propose, for instance, to teach teen girls about how to take control of their own sexuality and how to keep themselves from getting pregnant, and propose to hand out condoms so that those who choose to have sex will be able to have safe sex, (things that actually work to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, and therefore work to reduce the abortion rate) the fundamentalists should be all for it! Right? Right?

Of course not. They can't compromise their "no sex before marriage" values, even if it means a reduction in abortion rates. They cannot do this because their views are based on a very strict and literal take on religion, not on any reasoned conclusion as to what is good for individuals or society.

So, now that I've given you a huge and totally not extreme example, how about you answer the question you avoided answering before:

Do you think fundamentalist christians are good at compromise/ meeting people halfway, in issues that touch upon their faith, as homosexuality does? (I made it more specific so you couldn't claim that they were very good at compromising at, say, the colour to paint the den, or whether Junior is old enough to have a dog. This is because I no longer trust that you are arguing honestly and in good faith.)

Could you also, please, address this? I notice you did not do so.

Gay people, especially gay people having sex, is contrary to the way fundamentalist christians define prudery.[ ETA: either personal or political prudery! ] Or morality or whatever they choose to call it. Their definition is the only one that matters, since they are the people you are hoping to influence. Also, even if we go by your definition, homosexuals who fuss about how others choose to have (consensual) sex are hypocrites. They flew in the face of societal norms regarding sex. To criticize others for flying the face of societal norms regarding sex is hypocritical.

I will even expand upon this. The political prudery of the religious right springs directly from their religious beliefs. X, y, and z are SINS and are therefore BAD, and therefore NO ONE should do them. There is no nuance in this view.

For instance, the reason teen sex is bad is not because it can lead to unplanned pregnancy, or an sti, or because there is the possibility of emotional upheaval when the body is ready for sex but the mind is not. Those things might be pointed to as proof that god thinks it's bad, but are never the reason it's bad. It is bad because teens aren't married and sex outside of marriage is a sin and sins are bad. There is, again, no nuance to this.

It is hard for anyone who thinks about this without the lens of a strict and literal religious belief to come to such a starkly un-nuanced view. Gay people have had to think a great deal about sex as a concept (as opposed to thinking about having it), because they have had to make decisions about when to come out and who to tell, etc, and so they are even less likely, I would argue, to come to stark black-and-white conclusions about sexuality than the rest of the population.

Certainly people can oppose certain sexual behaviors in certain situations, but when people who have thought about the issue reasonably take a stand against something, it tends not to be a blanket condemnation about sex or a sexual concept itself. Dan Savage, for instance, is not in favour of young men going out to the local park to find anonymous sexual partners to bareback. He's not opposed to this because it is promiscuous, however. He's not opposed to promiscuity at all. He's opposed to risky sex. He objects to this behavior because it carries high risk for contracting an sti, and because it carries high risk for getting caught in a dangerous situation. He believes that risk should be weighed and balanced, and in this case he feels the risk is too high.

Or take teen sex. I have concerns about it that I listed above. I do not, however, believe that it should be universally discouraged. I think teenagers, and girls in particular, should be educated well enough to make informed and thoughtful decisions. That the culture surrounding sex should be more encouraging of all choices--not the mixed message teens get today, that all sex is bad and at the same time sex sex sex! Slut-shaming, in particular, the false dichotomy of placing girls into only two categories: the prude or the whore, needs to be eliminated. Political prudery does nothing to help this, and, in fact, makes it worse.

So, I think it would be very unlikely for a gay person, who has had to think extensively about sexuality and social norms, and who has then had to fly in the face of one of the biggest social norms regarding sexuality, to be a political prude of this kind. If any exist, their views are, as I have said, hypocritical.

 

[Ziggurat]

Fred Phelps is only extreme in where he chooses to protest, not in message.

That's simply not true.

Thinking masturbation is a sin is pretty par for the course.

That is how you characterize Fred Phelps? Sorry, but if that's your yardstick, you've missed the larger issues by a country mile.

Do you think fundamentalist christians are good at compromise/ meeting people halfway, in issues that touch upon their faith, as homosexuality does?

Nobody is good at compromise when the issue "touches their faith". That includes people who have faith in secular ideas too. Just look at how common opposition to nuclear power is among environmentalists.

I will even expand upon this. The political prudery of the religious right springs directly from their religious beliefs. X, y, and z are SINS and are therefore BAD, and therefore NO ONE should do them. There is no nuance in this view.

First off, most people don't have "nuanced views" about most topics. Your own perception of fundamentalist Christianity is a case in point. And secondly, you are basically assuming a nuanced position isn't possible for a fundamentalist Christian, because if it was, then chances are some of them would have a nuanced view. But it doesn't take much to figure out that it is indeed possible. I'll let you take a crack at it, but let me know if you can't figure it out.

So, I think it would be very unlikely for a gay person, who has had to think extensively about sexuality and social norms, and who has then had to fly in the face of one of the biggest social norms regarding sexuality, to be a political prude of this kind.

In other words, if they don't agree with you, that's proof that they didn't think extensively about it. At the end of the day, that's all your argument about prude gays being hypocritical really amounts to.

 

[Ziggurat]

There's a reason I said sins, not crimes. I should have specified, perhaps, legal sins

Yes, you should have.

but really, when christians say that everyone is a sinner they clearly don't mean that everyone is a criminal, so I thought you'd be able to cotton on to the point. Especially since I made a point of mentioning abortion, the OTHER legal sin that gets a lot of sturm unt drang. Sorry.

If you just say "sin" without any qualifier, then logically that means any sin, which rather obviously includes sins which are crimes as well. Not everything in the 10 commandments is a crime, but a number of rather important ones are. So don't blame me because what you wrote didn't match what you meant.

No it doesn't. Having unsafe sex does. If everyone practiced safe sex and/or serosorted it wouldn't matter how many partners they had. Oh, and promiscuous lesbians are at very low risk for ANY sti.

This argument is... ironic. When people criticize abstinence-only education, they usually talk about how it doesn't take the reality of human behavior into account. Well, neither does this argument of yours. People aren't going to serosort, and many won't practice safe sex. Plus, of course, it's quite disingenuous. Either you're amazingly ignorant about the epidemiology of AIDS, which I doubt, or you're trying to hide the rather key role that super spreaders (ie, really promiscuous people) had in spreading the disease.

The public at large isn't politically prudish. A very vocal minority, that overlaps to a great extent with fundamentalist christians, is politically prudish. Homosexuals wouldn't be bringing their message in line with the majority of people.

That might be relevant if I was suggesting that all gays become prudes, but I'm not. But just as prudes are a vocal minority among the general population, a vocal minority of prudes among the gay population WOULD make the gay population better match the characteristics of the general population.

 

[elipse]

That's simply not true.

That is how you characterize Fred Phelps? Sorry, but if that's your yardstick, you've missed the larger issues by a country mile.

No, that was my second example. It had nothing to do with Fred Phelps. But you knew that.

Nobody is good at compromise when the issue "touches their faith". That includes people who have faith in secular ideas too. Just look at how common opposition to nuclear power is among environmentalists.

Bull ****. Christian Scientists marry outside of Christian Science all the time and when they do, it is standard practice that they compromise their religious ideas about prayer as an alternative to medical attention as regards their children. It's pretty much a given, in fact.

First off, most people don't have "nuanced views" about most topics. Your own perception of fundamentalist Christianity is a case in point.

So my alleged unfair generalization of fundamentalists, who vote together in a predictable block and care about what other people are doing in predictable ways, constitutes a lack of nuance, but your generalization about "most people" is acceptable without examination? You sooo don't argue honestly.

And secondly, you are basically assuming a nuanced position isn't possible for a fundamentalist Christian, because if it was, then chances are some of them would have a nuanced view. But it doesn't take much to figure out that it is indeed possible. I'll let you take a crack at it, but let me know if you can't figure it out.

Quit mucking around in vague hypothetical land. I gave you a huge example of how the christian right in this country, as a group, as a voting and protesting and acting block, does not have a nuanced view and will not compromise. Want another? The hpv vaccine.

In other words, if they don't agree with you, that's proof that they didn't think extensively about it. At the end of the day, that's all your argument about prude gays being hypocritical really amounts to.

Bull ****. People can and do disagree with each other in reasonable ways, about every conceivable subject, all the time. Blanket condemnation of a whole (consensual!) sexual concept or sex as a whole does not, however, any way you slice it, constitute a reasoned and thoughtful analysis.

I have an idea. I have explained the hypocrisy of the kind of political prudery you have been talking about being adopted by gay people--several times in fact, and you are still (willfully? I think so) misrepresenting it. Why don't you try to put my argument into your own words, faithfully representing it back to me, so that I will recognize it as my own. That way we can see if this is really a communication problem, or if (as I suspect) you are misrepresenting it on purpose to make it seem untenable.

 

[elipse]

Yes, you should have.

Fine, now I have.

If you just say "sin" without any qualifier, then logically that means any sin, which rather obviously includes sins which are crimes as well.

Oh, please. They have their own category, a real category with real consequences in the real, here and now world. No one needs to consider rape and murder in the same category as the "legal sins" because they are already considered, even by people who don't believe in sin, to be bad. They are in a category that overshadows "sin". No one says "you shouldn't murder because it is a sin" because there are overwhelming here-and-now, this world, clear, and unrelated-to-the-disapproval-of-one-particular-version-of-the-concept-of-god reasons not to murder.

But fine, I've clarified. It doesn't matter, I guess, whether you REALLY misunderstood or if you misrepresented on purpose.

Not everything in the 10 commandments is a crime, but a number of rather important ones are. So don't blame me because what you wrote didn't match what you meant.

"Two" is indeed a number, but it doesn't match up with what you seem to be implying when you say "a number of important ones are [crimes]."

...Unless you take a very, very narrow view of "bear false witness," and interpret it to mean only "bearing false witness against another in a court of law," in which case it's three. Doing that is torturing the commandment a little, though, at least in my view...and "three" still doesn't really match up with what seems to be implied when you say "a number of important ones are [crimes]"

Actually, now that I think about it, you have to take a fairly narrow interpretation of "thou shalt not kill" in order for that to qualify, either. So now we have one that's pretty widely interpreted, one that you need to qualify somewhat, and one that needs to be qualified so much that you're no longer talking about the commandment that christian people follow. That's it. Is that what you meant to imply when you said "a number of important ones are [crimes]"? If it is, it's not a very strong argument in your favour...


You still haven't answered the question. Now that you know I didn't mean crimes, do you still think this is a misrepresentation of the fundamentalist community?

This argument is... ironic. When people criticize abstinence-only education, they usually talk about how it doesn't take the reality of human behavior into account. Well, neither does this argument of yours. People aren't going to serosort, and many won't practice safe sex. Plus, of course, it's quite disingenuous. Either you're amazingly ignorant about the epidemiology of AIDS, which I doubt, or you're trying to hide the rather key role that super spreaders (ie, really promiscuous people) had in spreading the disease.

I'm not promoting a rose-eyed view of human sexuality. Lots of people do practice safe sex and serosorting, but I never said everyone does or will. I'm just pointing out that you said that the spread of AIDS is related to promiscuity, but that isn't so. It's related to unsafe sex. If you mean the RATE of spread, particularly in the eighties when it wasn't understood what was going on, then yes, sure. But the whole reason it was so easily spread by promiscuity in the eighties was precisely because it was not understood. (Unless you want to claim that the rate of spread hasn't changed since the cause was found...)

Anyway, the point was that promiscuity in and of itself isn't bad. Unsafe sex with non-fluid bonded partners may be a bad choice, and taking unnecessary risks might not be the best way to live your life, and being a lying douchbag is certainly not on any list of how to live ethically, but what do any of those things have to do with promiscuity being bad? Again, you can't use the argument that "promiscuity is bad because it spreads aids" if you are talking about the lesbian community, for instance. So if you want to argue that promiscuity is bad, you need to find a reason that is inherent to promiscuity, not to other bad decisions that may or may not go along with promiscuity.

You claimed that the gay community could benefit from prudery, and used AIDS as an example. Personal prudery can help individuals from contracting AIDS, sure, but so can practicing safe sex. Political prudery, the kind you explicitly say you're talking about, is the whole reason for the mess in the first place. The political prudery, in the 80's, of the country in general and the christian right and the Regan administration in particular, squashed the spread of knowledge about the disease. Knowledge that changed the course of the epidemic once gay people got seriously angry about the conspiracy of silence. Knowledge that would have changed the course of the epidemic earlier, had it not been squashed by people who were motivated by political prudery.

That might be relevant if I was suggesting that all gays become prudes, but I'm not. But just as prudes are a vocal minority among the general population, a vocal minority of prudes among the gay population WOULD make the gay population better match the characteristics of the general population.

Tsk. First of all, for clarity, since I misunderstood your use of prude at first and so has at least one other person, you really ought to specify that you mean political prudery, or the desire to police the sex lives of others.

Second, what?

Why should the gay community match the entire range of ideas that the general population holds? Why does that need to happen?
My point:
1.The majority of people in this country don't care what other people are doing with their junk.
2.Homosexuals don't care what other people are doing with their junk.
3.The views of homosexuals line up with what the majority view.

Why do we need a minority of homosexuals to line up with the thinking of a minority of the population? What purpose does that serve? You seemed to think it will help them win over fundamentalists. I don't, and have said why. So you moved the goalposts. You said it will help them come into alignment with the views of the public at large. I said it wouldn't do that, either, because most people are not political prudes. So your rebuttal is that we need gay political prudes...for balance? What?

Also, please tell me what you meant when you said I would be surprised at the number of christian fundamentalists "wouldn't exclude" gay people. What, exactly, is your claim? What does "wouldn't exclude" mean?

Finally, since I believe that you are not arguing honestly, I would appreciate it if you would quote my replies in total, as I have done for you, so that others can see what you are NOT replying to.

 

[elipse]

What do you guy's think?

Hi, Paulisonne,

The link now works for me...might have been my computer.

You express yourself really well in writing. I don't think the video does your ideas justice, although I was personally touched. You have a good story, and some very touching lines, but I think you should write it out and polish it a little, because you do speak very slowly.

If you do decide to re-record, here are some other tips, that are meant in the best spirit of friendship, and not meant to be cold-hearted or mean.

*I would not give strangers your mobile number. If you really feel strongly that you could help, maybe your facebook page, but not your mobile number. You do mention the Trevor project and the Rainbow project, which I think is good. Perhaps if you downplayed the "talk to me" and focused more on those resources?

*I think videos that have more than one person in them are more effective: physical proof, if you will, that it gets better. I would ask a friend to be in it with you, for support, even if the friend says very little (or nothing.)

*Shorter videos are more effective, I think, unless you're a texas city coucil member or the president. If you write it out and polish it and cut out the pauses that do happen after you film it, the length will come down a lot and it will be far more effective.

*I know that you're recording via webcam, but if you do re-record, try to position it a little higher so that you're shot directly on and not from slightly below. (This is the least important, in my view.)

Now, on to what I liked.
I liked it that you did not focus on the problems that caused you to consider suicide. You mentioned the situation, but got right on to the main point, that it gets better. I would keep that part the way it is, it's very touching, but just tighten up the pacing.

I like it that you said that their potential support includes you, but, as I said, I would make that support, at least at first, facebook only.

"I know you feel alone. I felt alone." Something about the way you say this is very sweet.

"I don't optimistically believe that. I know that" is also strong.

Your smile and wave at the end is very touching. I believe that you care.

 

[monoman]

Iguanas, Gays and Bisexuals? Call me bigotted, but I don't give a stuff about lizards. It should be the "Lets Get Better Together" project.