Gay-Hatin' Gospel (pt. 1)

How did gay-hatin' come to be the "most-common perception" of Christianity?

Theory No. 1: The Safe Target

"No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to us all," St. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:13.

If you're a preacher, and if you possess the slightest bit of self-awareness, that's problematic. It means that preaching against any temptation or sin implicates your entire congregation and yourself as well. That can be really uncomfortable for all involved. Pick any of the seven deadlies or the 10 commandments and you risk alienating everyone in the pews and exposing yourself as less than perfect. Awwwk--waaard.

But lately, many American evangelical preachers think they have found a loophole: Homosexuality. Here is a temptation that does not seem to be common to us all. It seems to be the perfect "sin"* -- the perfect safe target. Straight preachers can rail against it without worrying about exposing themselves as hypocrites or, even worse, as fallible humans just like everyone else. And statistically speaking, most of the congregation will be able to say "Amen" without squirming or feeling the least discomfort. It's all win.

No other sin provides this kind of free shot. Point an accusing finger at gluttony, pride or envy and the proverbial four fingers pointing back at yourself underscore Paul's point about temptation being "common to us all." That's way too Pogo -- too "we have met the enemy and he is us." But here, instead, is the allure of an "enemy" who is not us. This is a unique opportunity, and kind of a rush. It's the chance to rail against sinners who seem completely other -- people whose sin doesn't tempt us in the least. (And since these others are clearly in the minority, we don't even have to worry much about a serious impact on the offering plate. Contrast that with gluttony, pride and envy -- the foundations on which some of the church's biggest donors have built their fortunes.)

I don't think this safe-target dynamic fully explains the motive or the cause of American evangelicalism's anti-gay obsession, but I do believe it accounts for part of its appeal. That appeal is all the more appealing in the American church, where we're deeply anxious about the fact that we don't seem significantly different from everybody else in our culture. Since we expend our lives chasing after the exact same things as everyone else, and since we can't say with any confidence that "They'll know we are Christians by our love," we have to latch onto whatever insignificant signifiers we can. We don't drink (in public), and we don't dance (well). Still not convinced we're the elect, the chosen few? Well then, um, we're heterosexual. Dazzled yet?

As that Barna survey demonstrated, the increasing popularity of railing against the supposed safe target of homosexuality has come at a cost. Evangelical Christians have become famous, or rather infamous, for being anti-gay. It is the "most-common perception" of who we are. The public face of Christianity is not the face of Christ, or even of Billy Graham or Martin Luther King Jr. or Dorothy Day. The public face of Christianity has become that of Fred Phelps and of his slightly more tactful, smiling surrogates like Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Tony Perkins. That is the "most-common perception" of American Christianity, both inside and outside the church.

But there's another theologically perilous cost to this safe-target preaching. The idea that there are "super-sins" worthy of particular opprobrium and the idea that there are "others" subject to temptations not "common to us all" are spiritually dangerous notions. I don't have the time or the wisdom to unpack all the ways that these ideas have altered our preaching and teaching, but consider just one example: Fidelity is the virtue at the core of nearly all Christian sexual ethics. Yet our safe-target condemnation of homosexuals treats fidelity and infidelity as indistinguishable. That suggests to me that something has come off the rails.

The passage quoted at the beginning of this post is the central insight of G.K. Chesterton's delightful Father Brown stories. The priest-sleuth is able to solve these mysteries not because of his keen powers of observation or because he is a Holmesian deductive genius, but rather because he is an expert on human nature, having studied the subject for decades by hearing confessions. The wisdom of Father Brown is that we're all pretty much alike, that there is no temptation that is not "common to us all." This was true for the Corinthians, the most screwed-up collection of misfits in the first-century church, and it is true for the Americans, the most screwed-up collection of misfits in the 21st-century church.

Chesterton, like Paul, could be a scold. But also like Paul he was never so foolish as to think that he could exempt himself when he preached against sin and temptation. Seeking such an exemption by taking aim at safe targets leads to self-delusion, smugness and complacency, and it goes against everything the Bible (and experience) teaches us about human nature. That point is worth repeating: The anti-gay preaching that has become the pre-eminent characteristic of American Christianity contradicts what the Bible says about human nature. It is unbiblical.

Anyway, so much for Theory No. 1. (As you've probably already guessed, I'm following the hackneyed convention here of dismissing the unsatisfactory theories first, gradually working toward what I think the actual explanation is. Next up: Theory No. 2, Inner Demons.)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* I want to make a distinction here between two things, both of which I disagree with. The first is the contention that homosexuality is, by definition, a sin. The second is the belief, implicit and explicit, that homosexuality is the worst and most odious of sins. This post is primarily concerned with the latter belief and in order to challenge that here I have accepted here for the sake of argument the language, if not the logic, of the former belief. The larger point is that the belief taught by most Christians -- that any sex outside of holy matrimony, narrowly defined, is a sin -- does not, and ought not, entail the idea that homosexuality is thus some kind of super-sin or that homosexuals should be singled out for condemnation from which other humans are exempt by the supposed virtue of their heterosexuality.

Comments

[cjmr's husband]

We don't drink (in public), and we don't dance (well).

...I'm more christian than I thought...

[Randall]

C. S. Lewis, interestingly, refused to give into the temptation to attack homosexuality precisely because it wasn't attractive to him. He said he would only condemn sins he himself was in danger of (my wording is awkward; his wasn't). Lewis isn't one of my favourite Christians, but his opinion here is an interesting contrast.

[Doctor Science]

Yeah Randall, that was exactly what I was about to say. Lewis said that he wouldn't talk about either homosexuality or gambling as sins, because those were the sins -- the *only* sins, he emphasized -- that had never tempted him.

[Cynic Sage]

I didn't know that about Lewis. Awesome.

Just out of curiosity, where and when did he say that?

[Brian J.]

Fred, what does it matter if anti-homoesxual actions and rhetoric are "unbiblical"? Most American Christians haven't opened their bibles in years.

And there's no reason to do so.

American Christianity is, like any other organization, what American Christians say it is. If there's no biblical sanction to it, what does that matter? Gawd and Jeebus aren't going to come down to correct them. (And no, they don't really believe in the Rapture either. It just provides a handy excuse for ACs to never think about the consequences of their actions, because there theoretically might not be a tomorrow.)

[ako]

Fred, what does it matter if anti-homoesxual actions and rhetoric are "unbiblical"?

For the same reason the Constitution matters, even with the Bush Administration in power. Proving that the people selling that view are pushing their own agenda, not the 'true' meaning of the founders can change a lot, and lets people who don't want to reject the whole system reject the distortions.

I don't believe in God, the Bible, or Christianity. But if those that do want to build anything better than where the current political drift is taking their organizations (churches, denominations, etc.), it helps to know what the central and foundational document does and doesn't say.

[Doctor Science]

Cynic Sage:

He talks about homosexuality in his spiritual autobiography "Surprised by Joy", when he's describing his time at a public school in which many of the upper form boys had younger boys as their "catamites". He IIRC says he won't condemn that homosexuality because (a) he never felt tempted by it, and (b) because those relationships, however perverted, were the nearest thing to love that any of the boys were allowed to feel.

In the Oxford survey of 16th-century poetry, Lewis wrote that Shakespeare's sonnets clearly began in a "perverted", homosexual affection -- but they ended up including the purest expressions of agape in the English language. For him, this was not a dilemma or a contradiction, but a *mystery* in the religious sense.

[G-Do]

Taking all bets for the name of the theory Fred actually believes in!

[Technomad]

I do think that a lot of this is kind of like Chava's marriage in Fiddler on the Roof. If you recall, Tevye the Dairyman, poor wretch, had three eligible daughters, each of whom defied the traditions of their village to marry the man she wanted.

The eldest girl, Tzeitl, defied her father's arranged marriage and demanded to marry the poor tailor she actually loved. Not Good---this involved serious hard feelings on the part of the suitor she rejected, and under normal circs could have been a source of real tension in the village for years; it also involved her not getting a fancy dowry---but acceptable.

The second girl, Hodel, again defies expectations: instead of marrying a stable man from Anatevka, she marries a poor revolutionary who ends up getting shipped off to Siberia. Again, Not Good---she's in a bad way what with him in prison, and she's cut off from most of her family---but, again, acceptable. At least he's Jewish.

But Chava, the youngest of the three marriageable daughters, (Tevye actually has five, but the younger two are too young to worry about and have very small parts in the show) goes too far. She marries a Gentile---and Tevye turns his face from her. It stabs him to the quick, but he does it. From the moment he finds out, she's out of the family for good.

For a lot of people, the big social changes that came in between about 1965 and 1980 were an awful lot to swallow---and the whole "gay" thing was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Keep in mind that to this day, laws forbidding gay sex are on the books in quite a few areas; also, after WWII, when the Western Allies were liberating the prisoners of the Nazis, people who'd been thrown in the KZs for being gay were shipped off to regular prison, on the grounds that the Nazis had imprisoned them for good and sufficient reason.

A lot of gays' idiotic tactics haven't helped any---they've endlessly upped the ante, and some of them seem to delight in doing things that'll squick out straight people. David Brin has pointed out that a lot of this sort of thing has done nothing more than to solidify opposition; the whole "gay marriage" brouhaha has mainly galvanized legislatures to pass laws specifically forbidding even gay civil unions. Smooth move!

At seventh and last, though, a lot of people just find the whole idea of same-sex sex squicky. When I was a kid, it was Common Knowledge that the only way to kill a gay was with a silver bullet. I think, myself, that as time passes, a lot of the reflexive hostility to the idea of same-sex sex will pass...but it'll take time. And, yes, I know it's unfair.

[McJulie]

For a lot of people, the big social changes that came in between about 1965 and 1980 were an awful lot to swallow---and the whole "gay" thing was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

I think you're misreading the situation a bit. Before the 60s and 70s, there were huge aspects of culture were just taken for granted, encompassing everything from the necessity for ladies to wear gloves in public to whether homosexuality was acceptable. All of that began to change -- dramatically, and in a remarkably short time.

The deeper sexual taboos (contraception, divorce, homosexuality, abortion) were a bit slower to crumble under the onslaught than things like women in pants, but they did. Contraception went first, then divorce. Abortion and homosexuality linger as controversial, but with homosexuality, most opinion polls (even among Christians) show a distinct generational divide. Younger people just don't see what the big deal is.

I'm guessing that pure selfish pragmatism is partly at work here -- my grandmother saw a personal benefit to wearing trousers, and quickly overcame any lingering doubts about the appropriateness of women in pants. My mother saw a personal benefit to contraception. Many people saw a personal benefit to no-fault divorce. Homosexuality directly affects a minority, and until the taboo against it began to crumble a little, people didn't even realize how much it might affect them too. (Gays are responsible for the theater? I had no idea!)

A lot of gays' idiotic tactics haven't helped any---they've endlessly upped the ante

Hmm. I simply could not disagree more. I'm not even sure what you mean by "upping the ante" -- all the way to full equal rights with straight people? And that's idiotic why?

and some of them seem to delight in doing things that'll squick out straight people.

I find it interesting that you presume all straight people are squicked out by the same gay-related activities merely by virtue of being straight.

What behavior do you mean, anyway? Two dudes kissing in public? Gay porn? The flamboyant absurdity at a typical gay rights parade? How is any of that fundamentally different from the equivalent straight behavior, except that the porn doesn't turn on the same set of people?

Perhaps you mean they sometimes delight in doing things that will squick out conservative people, or homophobic people? Because, you know, I'm on board with that. I think they need to be squicked. Sometimes people are squicked by something merely because it is unfamiliar, and after repeated squicking, they actually stop being squicked. Of course, that makes those who are still squicked dig in their heels all the more, insisting loudly and repeatedly in their inalienable right to be squicked.

[Erick Oppeen]

Trouble is, you push anything too far and you get a backlash.

And, pray, what actual rights do gay people, qua gay people, lack? Are they turned away at the polling place? Are they forbidden trial by jury, or the presumption of innocence? Is it de jure legal to murder them or rob them, as it is de facto to steal from me?

Service in the military is not a right; many straights are turned away for flaws as minor as color-blindness. As for marriage, they have the same rights to marry as anybody else: all they need to do is find someone of the opposite sex who's free to marry (IOW, not already married) and not off-limits (too young or too closely related) and it's off to the Chapel of...well, can't call it love, now can I? This is marriage we're talking about! (Hmmm...would "Chapel of Eternal Torment" cut it, or is "Chapel of Misery and Sexual Frigidity" more appropriate?)

As for squicking "homophobic" people---speaking as an arachnophobe, I can tell you that anybody trying to have some fun by, say, shoving a live tarantula into my face is sucking around for a memorable beating-up. Phobias are not conscious, at least not in my own experience. Consciously, I know that spiders are harmless little beasties. I can see one on its web in the forest with no problem whatsoever. If I look down and see one crawling on my leg, though, my reaction is not at all governed by my mind; I jump half out of my skin and am not happy until I've KILLED IT. The scene in that James Bond flick (disremember which one; my sis-in-law loves the James Bond franchise but they run together in my mind) where 007 has a big, nasty spider crawling over him gives me the screaming creeps, and I avoided the movie Arachnophobia religiously; even the trailers turned me an interesting shade of green.

At seventh and last, what is the goal, here?

[Michele]

Erick: As for marriage, they have the same rights to marry as anybody else: all they need to do is find someone of the opposite sex

That's what "they" keep saying ("they" being defined as those who oppose same-sex marriage). I think it's dishonest. Yes, I know that *technically* gay people can marry - as long as they pick someone of the opposite sex. But honestly! WTF?!?

What if it was reversed? What if same-sex marriage was the "norm" and heteros were told that they have the same rights to marry as anybody else: all they need to do is find someone of the same sex ??

Why *shouldn't* gay people have the right to marry a person of their choice, no matter the plumbing??

[Michele]

oh, and homophobia is not at all on a par with arachnophobia.

[nationElectric]

As for marriage, they have the same rights to marry as anybody else

This is just a criminally ridiculous argument, and I can't believe that so many people are so completely unashamed to use it.

Woo hoo, homosexuals have the right to marry anyone so long is it is a virtual certainty that it will be a loveless marriage. Wisecracks about love and marriage aside, that is just a grotesque proposition. Let's look at it again:

You can marry anyone you want, so long as you can't love them.

Remember, now, it's not just that love is irrelevant. No, no, we're not talking about arranged marriages here. No, love isn't just irrelevant, it's impossible.

This from a culture that claims to prize true love as the very basis for marriage.

That opponents of same-sex marriage consider this kafkaesque standard a defense of their position really illustrates just how morally bankrupt and dehumanizing a position it is.

[nationElectric]

oh, and homophobia is not at all on a par with arachnophobia.

Ah, but what if you're quicked out by gay spiders?

[MikeJ]

oh, and homophobia is not at all on a par with arachnophobia.

This is why the phrase homophobia always bothered me. Yes, real homophobia is exactly like arachnophobia. "You're just scared of us" was always mainly a way for a disempowered group to feel stronger. True "homophobes" are few and far between, and have as much bearing on a conversation about rights as gynophobes have on a discussion of the 19th amendment.

Calling people who hate others based on sexual preference "homophobes" lets them off the hook. Those people are "assholes". I don't think that's in the DSM.

[Lurker]

I'd like to add one of the liturgical texts of my church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland: a public confession of sin, right before the "Kyrie" part of the mass (my translation)

Heavenly Father.
You created this world, its plants and animals,
to be a joy for yourself and for the humans
You have given us a grant of a good world,
but we have turned against you
With our deed, we have turned
the whole creation on the road towards death
and it now seems
that everything we touch is broken.
Father, we confess, that we are powerless
to break the spiral of destruction.
Often, even when we know
what we should do to protect life,
we do not change direction.
We consume over justness
and steal the bread from the future generations
whom we should love as we love ourselves.
Greed and indifference
possess us every day.
Father, forgive us.
Free us from destructive acts
and kindle us a love
which guides us towards rightful deeds
towards all things you have created.

I think this text, said aloud by the whole congregation, bites more deeply to the sins we actually are committing than any discussion about sexuality. Oh yes, all sins are equal in the eyes of God, but some sins damage other people more than others. Sexuality is not close to being the worst area.

[Jesurgislac]

Erick: And, pray, what actual rights do gay people, qua gay people, lack? Are they turned away at the polling place? Are they forbidden trial by jury, or the presumption of innocence? Is it de jure legal to murder them or rob them, as it is de facto to steal from me?

Interesting you should ask. In Minnesota, a new activist project has launched to end the 515 ways in which the state of Minnesota discriminates against same-sex couples. It's called Project 515. While the number will vary, all states - including Massachusetts - discriminate against GLBT people in some ways, and there a thousand-plus ways in which the US federal government discriminates against GLBT people.

As for squicking "homophobic" people---speaking as an arachnophobe, I can tell you that anybody trying to have some fun by, say, shoving a live tarantula into my face is sucking around for a memorable beating-up.

The defense of gay-bashers everywhere: "Your Honor, I just couldn't help it - I saw those guys kissing and hugging and it squicked me and I just had to give them 'a memorable beating up'." Depending on where you live (and when you live) and which judge you get, of course, that defense even works.

[Jos]

Totally unrelated to the actual discussion, but...

It's all win.

Shouldn't this be either "It's all good." or "It's win-win"? "It's all win." isn't an expression I'm familiar with.

[Harold]

“Depending on where you live (and when you live) and which judge you get, of course, that defense even works.”

Sure, it's a classic reasonableness test and so it would naturally reflect local sentiment. Depending on the time and place a reasonable person might or might not try to beat demons out of a child and thus a person who actually did that would or would not be responsible for manslaughter when the child dies of its injuries. The gay panic defense is the same theory. This is why "civil rights" laws, though worth passing, are only a tiny fraction of the solution. A society in which "gay panic" is a laughable idea will never aquit anyone of murder with that defense.

McJulie I'd expect that the examples he's thinking of are people openly masturbating in the street, or even having group sex. Ordinarily if a man did this he'd be arrested, but at certain gay events the police ignore it. I'm not aware of any non-GLBT events at which this is accepted. Note carefully, in the street. Personally I don't see a major problem with it, so long as those involved clean up properly to avoid the possibility of public health risk, but if they're going to arrest straight people for it (which they do) then they need to reconsider why there's a de facto special exemption for "Pride" and similar events. If it's because it would be treated as provocation they need to get organisers in for a consultation, there are sensible people behind most Pride events, and if you told them "look, if people start wanking in the middle of the street we have to arrest them" then you should have less problems later if it actually happens.

Is this a problem with other dubious prudery laws ? Do girls stripping to the waist for Spring Break photos avoid arrest while the rest of the year they'd be cited for indecent exposure? Maybe so but in any case I'd argue that either the law needs to be rationalised (it's not as if Spring Break or Pride are going away) or the police just have to start arresting people. It's much harder to argue "We just want equal rights" when some groups are getting special treatment.

[Jesurgislac]

Harold: McJulie I'd expect that the examples he's thinking of are people openly masturbating in the street, or even having group sex.

Possibly, but if that's the kind of thing Erick thinks of, and that's the kind of thing you think of, I'd say you should consider why you think a lot about men masturbating/having group sex. In the street.

Ordinarily if a man did this he'd be arrested, but at certain gay events the police ignore it.

Can you offer any actual examples? Because the only times I've heard of this, it's invariably turned out to be some Christian closet-case fantasising about how these hott gay men at Pride have sex in the street. Not any actual reportage of men having sex in the street at Pride and the police ignoring it.

[Harold]

Here's an example (the first Google hit) of a reporter mentioning, matter-of-factly, that a named participant in the Folsom Street Fair is masturbating in the street.

http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/004352.html

Now, is the reporter or the editor a Christian closet-case? I don't know this Poh Si Teng person. The bulk of the report seems to a "Some do / some don't" piece about people who take their kids to an event that advertises itself as being adult-oriented but occurs in a public space where children can't reasonably be prohibited. It makes a reasonable point about whether toddlers and other young kids are sophisticated enough understand S&M as distinct from non-consensual violence. But I don't know, maybe that's what Christian closet-cases are writing about these days. What do you think ?

[Alison]

"Woo hoo, homosexuals have the right to marry anyone so long is it is a virtual certainty that it will be a loveless marriage."

Actually, it's worse when marriage between gays and straights is not loveless. A gay male friend of mine misguidedly married, thinking (I suppose) that living straight would eventually make him so. His life is now a nightmare of deceit, guilt, and conflicted emotions as he has come to grips with the reality that he will always prefer sex with other men to sex with his wife. The thing is, he does love his wife as a person and it's killing him to know how she will suffer should he decide to start living honestly.
The point here is that denying gays the right to marry according to their natural inclinations creates an atmosphere that breeds this kind of tragic situation. Gay people who feel the need for commitment, acceptance, stability, and the benefits of mainstream society, have no means to get these things without lying to people they care for about who they are---with lots of collateral damage along the way.

[Richard Hershberger]

"As for marriage, they have the same rights to marry as anybody else"

"This is just a criminally ridiculous argument, and I can't believe that so many people are so completely unashamed to use it."

On the other hand, it does serve as a useful marker that the person making the argument has nothing to say. This can be a great time-saver.

[Rosina]

"Why do (these people) bring kids here? This is a leather fair for god's sake," said Bahran Aliassa, who was masturbating in public. He has been doing it annually for the past six years. He must really need some soothing cream.

I couldn't see any indication that this was a Gay Pride event. Or even exclusively gay. It was as Bahran Aliassa moaned, a leather fair, for BDSM fetishists. It is also not held on streets open to the public - people were turning away at the gates, after warnings by the police (but not being stopped from entering if they wanted to).

[Jesurgislac]

Harold: But I don't know, maybe that's what Christian closet-cases are writing about these days. What do you think ?

As Rosina says: I think you are confusing what happens at a fair held in an enclosed area with gate guards who warn people entering of the nature of the event, with public GLBT Pride events held on the street. Whether this is a deliberate or accidental confusion on your part, only you know.

Actually: I can believe that there have been occasions at Pride marches or fairs where people have tried to have sex in public or have successfully had sex in public. I suspect that this happens sometimes at any large public event, especially one where there are lots of fairly young people (late teens/early twenties) and they think they can do so unobserved. But it certainly isn't usual, and it's not the case that the police routinely ignore it.

[Harold]

OK, so we've established that I'm right on the essentials, and now we're negotiating about the parameters, good to know...

“It is also not held on streets open to the public”

What exactly is not public about the 1500+ meters of city streets used for Fulsom? Is it that you'd never go this part of the city if there weren't exhibitionists lined up to take photos of ? You agree that anyone can enter, which sounds like public streets to me (a place which is merely "open to the public", like a bar or a library has ROAR rules) and then you point out that there police warning those too dim-witted to notice the drag queens with donation buckets. The police are present rather than private security, and it requires support and authorisation from local government. So, that makes it like the dockside roads when a big ship leaves the city, or a firework display in the town park. Public streets, supervised for public safety. Not a private event.

Heck, my local Pride is less public than that, there's a ticket price and ROAR rules for everything except the parade itself. The masturbation and other sexual activity, in this case, was mostly taking place in side alleys, where you could at least pretend that police couldn't see it. It's slightly silly that Slacktivist's supposedly world-weary posters aren't aware that this is going on - to the extent that they categorise reporting of it as fantasy.

[Harold]

I'm done here for what it's worth. I just wanted to point out that Erick isn't necessarily talking about "Oh no! A gay couple kissing!" when he (she? it?) says that it's counter-productive to be deliberately transgressive when you're asking to be treated like everyone else. I got jumped on, which would ordinarily make my day but in a web forum it just means it's hopeless to continue, so I won't.

[Jesurgislac]

OK, so we've established that I'm right on the essentials, and now we're negotiating about the parameters, good to know...

Actually, we've established that you're wrong in what you're claiming. Try again.

What exactly is not public about the 1500+ meters of city streets used for Fulsom?

As stated in the article you linked to: during the fair, those areas are closed off. To enter the fair, you pass through an entrance with a security guard. The guard's job is to warn you that you are entering a zone where yes, you may witness sexual activities. Didn't you read the article?

Heck, my local Pride is less public than that, there's a ticket price and ROAR rules for everything except the parade itself. The masturbation and other sexual activity, in this case, was mostly taking place in side alleys, where you could at least pretend that police couldn't see it.

Ah, well at least that is first-hand reporting. You're saying that you attended your local Pride, and "in side alleys", you witnessed men masturbating and having sex with other men. If this was happening in side alleys, exactly how was it part of the official Pride festivities? How public was it? How many men? Are we talking about mass public orgies filling the side alleys, where the police had to avert their eyes to avoid seeing it, or did you wander up a side alley to see what you could find and discover that behind a dumpster, one man was giving another a blowjob...?

[Jesurgislac]

Harold: I just wanted to point out that Erick isn't necessarily talking about "Oh no! A gay couple kissing!" when he (she? it?) says that it's counter-productive to be deliberately transgressive when you're asking to be treated like everyone else.

Except that for a gay couple, "deliberately transgressive" can and does mean deliberately holding hands or kissing in public. And that homophobes have beaten or killed men for doing just that.

[Jesurgislac]

Harold: I got jumped on, which would ordinarily make my day but in a web forum it just means it's hopeless to continue, so I won't.

Aw, Harold. You mean you're not able to find any citable evidence to justify your claim, and so you're just giving up? FWIW, I'll take your first-hand reportage of your local Pride as evidence - what you saw when you were there counts. Just be a bit more specific about those side-alleys.

Alternatively, come back on Left Behind Friday and join us in our hatefest on Those Books. (Flamewar Thursday is possibly not the best day for newbies, but you might find you enjoy it after a while.)

[Technocracygirl]

What exactly is not public about the 1500+ meters of city streets used for Fulsom?

Oh, I don't know, maybe the steel crowd control barriers that the police put up at any large event to block off the street?

At the Folsom Street Fair, there are the crowd control barriers at all the intersections. To get in, you have to funnel through a comparatively tight space where a) the guards check to make sure you want to come in and b) they can hit you up for a donation to the non-profit groups that the fair is supporting. After you get through the gates, there is an entire city block that is completely open. No booths, no tables, nothing. It's empty space. Yes, later in the day, there might be some people lingering in that area, but for the most part, everyone just walks through it to get to the fair itself. So there's not even a whole lot of stuff for anyone to see unless they go through the gates. (Most of the costumed people put on their garb/take off their clothes within the area of the fair itself.)

So no, you can't see much of interest unless you're actually within the immediate boundries. Could you please trust that people who have been doing this for thirty years might actually know what they're doing as per not involving people who don't want to be involved?

[inge]

Re: phobias -- You can get treatment for phobias. There is no known treatment for assholery. Also, arachnophobia is a personal problem. You can scream and run away and avoid cellars, stay out of the parks during tarantula mating season and load most of scienceblogs only with images off, it's not society's problem. If homophobics managed to limit themselves to like reactions, there would be no problem worth talking about.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I understand Harold's argument: homosexuals can have equal rights as soon as they eliminate every single oddball from their ranks.

It makes perfect sense to deny all gays the right to marry based on what one gay person does in a side alley somewhere.

That logic is indisputable.

[Jesurgislac]

Rusty: It makes perfect sense to deny all gays the right to marry based on what one gay person does in a side alley somewhere.

To be fair to Harold, it's usually two.

To be less fair to Harold, he was arguing (apparently) that even one man masturbating all alone in a side-alley, which Harold just happened to wander down, is the kind of "deliberately transgressive" behavior which inspires "memorable beatings" from homophobes.

[McJulie]

Harold: McJulie I'd expect that the examples he's thinking of are people openly masturbating in the street, or even having group sex.

Funny, but I lived in Seattle's Gayest Neighborhood for a year and never saw anything like that. I went to three Seattle Pride Parades and never saw anything like that. Seattle's alterna-weekly The Stranger has a weekly column which includes weird things people witness being done in public, and those things sometimes include masturbation and public sex, but the obviously gay aren't the primary culprits.

(And whenever I've personally seen people having sex in public, they've been man/woman couples, and also in giant cities like New York or London.)

Now, those are all anecdotal experiences of dubious statistical value. But so are most homophobic claims of Teh Gays having all that Public Sex and Other Depravity where Children Can See.

I, too, am an arachnophobe. I recognize that it's my problem -- the spiders aren't doing anything wrong. Sure, I try to keep them out of my house and off my person. But I don't think that part is really analogous -- I mean, what, Mr. Oppeen, are gay men scuttling under your door and building webs in the corner of your shower? You can't go down to the basement without taking a stick to knock down all the gay men clinging to the ceiling before you go in? When you're outdoors in the fall gay men drop from the trees and get caught in your hair? When you go out to the wood pile, gay men run out and scurry up your pants leg?

[Retrogrouch]

Erick: Trouble is, you push anything too far and you get a backlash.

Amen, brother. That fact is fairly central to the greatest story ever told, no?

Here's the corollary: you may take one step back for every two steps forward, but without those two steps, you ain't moving forward at all. The letter from the Birmingham jail most eloquently lays out the case that you cannot take just one step.

As for lewd and offensive silliness that happens at gay pride parades, I think it's just behavior learned from "straight" parades. Mardis Gras anyone?

[Rozzen]

I mean, what, Mr. Oppeen, are gay men scuttling under your door and building webs in the corner of your shower?

Reminds me of a Daily Show skit where they interviewed people who wanted to close the sex shop across the street To Protect The Children, and it turned out they happened to have moved into the gayest neighborhood around...

[Tonio]

I don't understand why homosexuality is even considered a sin in the first place. Morality is, or should be, about questions of human happiness and suffering. It makes sense that adultery would be deemed sinful - when you are unfaithful to your spouse, you cause harm through your betrayal and deception. But homosexuality causes no intrinsic harm to others or to society.

[Rusty Shackleford]

After reading these comments, what I'm really afraid of is spiders masturbating in public.

[Jesurgislac]

I wonder if spiders masturbate on the Web?

[wintermute]

I wonder if spiders masturbate on the Web?

Sperm transmission from male to female occurs indirectly. When a male is ready to mate, he spins a web pad upon which he discharges his seminal fluid. He then dips his pedipalps (also known as palpi), the small, leg-like appendages on the front of his cephalothorax, into the seminal fluid, picking it up by capillary attraction. Mature male spiders have swollen bulbs on the end of their palps for this purpose, and this is a useful way to identify the sex of a spider in the field. With his palps thus charged he goes off in search of a female. Copulation occurs when the male inserts one or both palps into the female's genital opening, known as the epigyne. He transfers his seminal fluid into the female by expanding the sinuses in his palp. Once the sperm is inside her, she stores it in a chamber and only uses it during the egg-laying process, when the eggs comes into contact with the male sperm for the first time and are fertilized; this may be why the vivipary has never evolved in spiders.

--Cite

It would seem that every sex-act between spiders starts with them masturbating on the web...

[LL]

Public sex is certainly not confined to "gay events." It's not even confined to "events." Unfortunately, there are tons of people who think it's awesome when other people can see them gettin' it on. Public sex isn't a feature of gay life, it's a feature of American culture (and maybe others, not sure about that), which encourages attention whores of all kinds. And anyone who thinks gay men are the only ones who jerk off in public places either isn't a man or is extremely sheltered.

I'm also really tired of hearing people talk about how people don't like being "forced" to accept things too "quickly," the BS excuse of everyone who wanted to keep slavery or keep women from voting or keep black kids out of "white" schools. The thing you people are so afraid of is called "change." The world has been doing it forever. Try to keep up instead of expecting the rest of us to stay behind. No one's forcing you to attend a gay pride parade or have a same-sex marriage ceremony in your church. Most gay people don't want to impose anything on anyone, they just want the same freedoms as every other adult in America, as they pay the same taxes we do and are obligated to abide by the same laws everyone else does. I'm not sure why this logic is so difficult for some people to grasp. Religious people say they don't want to be judged by the behavior of their most unhinged, fringe elements, then they turn right around and do the exact same thing to gay people (or feminists or black people or Democrats) to justify keeping them second-class citizens, good enough to pay taxes to the government, but not good enough to enjoy all the freedoms it deigns to grant everyone else.

Won't even address the "gays are free to marry" argument put forth, it's not even worthy of debate. By that logic, I'm free to go out and murder anyone I want, what's stopping me? Just those uptight laws against murder.

If religious people would confine their arguments to "gays are icky," I would respect them more, because their other arguments are just idiotic.

[wintermute]

it's a feature of American culture (and maybe others, not sure about that)

In Britain, there's quite a subculture based around public sex, referred to as "dogging".

[Edo]

@ Jesurgislac: "I wonder if spiders masturbate on the Web?"

Rule 34.

That is all.

[Rozzen]

It occurs to me the "gays are allowed to marry" argument is like saying "hey, speed limits don't keep you from going at the speed you want ! Provided it isn't too fast.".
Or maybe more accurately "I don't get you 18 year-old kids' problem with the legal drinking age. You're perfectly allowed to buy all the alcohol you want ! So long as you do it in Quebec."

LL : I'm also really tired of hearing people talk about how people don't like being "forced" to accept things too "quickly," the BS excuse of everyone who wanted to keep slavery or keep women from voting or keep black kids out of "white" schools. The thing you people are so afraid of is called "change."

Oh ! You mean like :

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

^^

[Armando]

Could the following notions be part of the problem as well? 1. Evangelical Christianity is far from "the church" Evangelicals (and, indavertently above, you, Fred) would paint it as. It is far from the only interpretation of Christianity available to Americans (or anyone else) and, I would argue, not exactly the mainstream regardless of how powerful and loud its advocates have become (this, more than the condemnation of homosexuality, is why I ultimately came to reject Evangelicalism). 2. Isn't sin an irrelevant concept now? Perhaps if Christians (or anyone else) spent less time worrying about gaining God's acceptance through following certain codes of "correct" behavior which are often based on outmoded and irrelevant social mores and spent more time trying to follow the ethics of Jesus, they not only would be happier for it but the world would be a better place. (This is why I find myself slowly coming to reject Christianity in general these days, even if I'm not ready to reject Christ.)

[Armando]

<

This is just a criminally ridiculous argument, and I can't believe that so many people are so completely unashamed to use it.
>>>

Not only is it criminally ridiculous, NationElectric, it's downright idiotic and anyone who uses it has lost all claim to being taken seriously intellectually or even having their "argument" heard, because, quite frankly and simply, they have no argument other than their own bigotry and myopia.

[LMM]

Before the 60s and 70s, there were huge aspects of culture were just taken for granted....

The problem with this concept is that it's playing into the conservatives' arguments.

"Huge aspects" of culture may have been taken for granted, but the definitions themselves changed. Prior to the 1850-1890s, abortion was perfectly acceptable so long as it occurred before quickening -- up until quickening, a pregnant woman wasn't technically seen as carrying a child. Prior to Freud, lesbianism among upper-class and middle-class women may have been relatively common -- women who didn't get married often lived together, and no one thought anything of it because, being women, they weren't believed to be capable of sexual desire without the influence of men.

It's not that things suddenly changed during the 1960s through 1980s. It's that they've always been changing, and that most conservatives -- and, for that matter, most liberals -- simply aren't old enough to remember otherwise.

[Salamanda]

Wait. You mean Erick wasn't kidding? I wasn't sure at first, but the "Chapel of Misery and Sexual Frigidity" made me think he was being facetious, and the arachnophobe thing pretty much sealed it for me.

Wow.