Culture Wars

Written by Carmine on April 27th, 2006

Posted in |

29 Comments so far ↓

Apr
28
3:09
AM

Becky
Speaking of politics in children’s books, how about “Help, Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed!” ?
Apr
28
6:26
AM

Carmine
You miss the point entirely.
Apr
28
7:29
AM

DavidShiffman
Yes, the point is that you think schools should be teaching everyone that anyone who isn’t Christian and straight is going to hell. Charming. Can’t we just let redneck parents teach that stuff? Why do we need to bring the schools into it?

I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to post this, and here it is:

Top ten reasons to make gay marriage illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans
Apr
28
7:40
AM

Carmine
David - see Post #2
Apr
28
4:45
PM

Langley
You two are really stretching the bounderies here. Nobody on our side has said ANYTHING about teaching children that being gay is a “sin” or “unnatural.” I’d rather the schools just stay out of the issue completely. If the kid wants to learn about gay people, he can from his parents- whether they teach him that “It’s OK to be Gay” (classic rhyme…) or “If you turn gay we’re going to stone you to death.” (I kid) Why even bring it up in a public school? What’s the use? Being gay is not a natural thing- scientifically, genetically, naturally, however you want to look at it- people can learn about it at their leisure. But it isn’t a subject that needs to even be brought up in a public school setting.
Apr
28
5:57
PM

Becky
How is being gay not a natural thing? Haven’t you heard all the statistics about men with more older brothers being more likely to be gay, which seems to point to a uterine environment impact? There have been gay people as long as history has been recorded — from speculation about Sappho’s sexuality (you know, where the term “lesbian” came from), to the plethora of examples from early Greek & Roman society and the VERY acceptable practice of men having younger boys as lovers.

Quoted from Langley:
“Nobody on our side has said ANYTHING about teaching children that being gay is a “sin” or “unnatural.” I’d rather the schools just stay out of the issue completely. If the kid wants to learn about gay people, he can from his parents- whether they teach him that “It’s OK to be Gay” (classic rhyme…) or “If you turn gay we’re going to stone you to death.” (I kid) Why even bring it up in a public school? What’s the use? Being gay is not a natural thing- ”

You do see where you say that no one on your side has said it’s “unnatural,” and then a couple sentences later, you say being gay “is not a natural thing”?

And please tell me that you’re aware of the fact that many churches are teaching children that being gay is a sin, and that when groups advocate “reforming” gays, that they are quite explictly saying “this is wrong,” and “this is unnatural”??
Apr
28
7:05
PM

Carmine
Thank you Langley - I was curious to see how far this would go based totally on assumptions. Forget what you and I, or the next person thinks - in a nation where test scores are down across the board, let’s focus on the three R’s instead of brainwashing our kids one way or another in a public school system.
Apr
28
7:07
PM

Langley
You are confusing what I believe to be true, and what I said should be brought up in schools. I stand by what I said: this isn’t an issue that needs to be brought up in public schools at all. And by the way, what churches teach is their own business- my tax dollars are forced to go to public schools, so that is my concern.
Apr
28
7:11
PM

Langley
Oh, and one more thing Becky - your example from Roman and Greek society is interesting, as those cultures became so corrupted and self-adulating that they ultimately perished. Just because something is “widely accepted” by an ancient culture doesn’t make it right. Your assertions are absurd, it seems that you are just claiming, “well, it’s kind of widespread, and well it’s not really harmful, and the Greeks and Romans did it, and they were cool, so there’s really nothing to worry about here.”

And I find it hilarious to see someone say that they think homosexuality is natural. All religious and moral tenets aside, it’s pretty darn clear that a man-man relationship isn’t natural by any stretch of the mind.
Apr
29
12:52
AM

Becky
Langley:

You are completely misreading my post. I used the example of the Greek & Roman traditions of homosexuality to demonstrate that we can see homosexuality as “natural” because it clearly crops up across times and cultures. And while you may characterize those societies as decadent, they also produced much of the classical thought that we fetishize today as the “Western tradition.”

Also, what evidence do you have that a “man to man” relationship isn’t natural? If people “naturally” seem inclined toward homosexual relationships, who are you to say what is and isn’t natural? And before you say “oh, but it doesn’t produce children!” can I just say, let’s face it: not all sexual relationships/pleasure are geared toward reproduction. Not every loving relationship is forged in the name of reproduction. And why exactly is “naturalness” any standard upon which to base what we teach our children to be tolerant of? It’s not really natural for humans to fly, or manipulate the genetic make-up of plants & pigs, but we do so, right?

Oh, and by the by — what do you mean that your tax dollars don’t go toward supporting relgious institutions? Last I checked, churches are getting all sort of benefits, from tax-exemption, to government money for charities. And then, churches can certainly choose to help only those groups they want to reach out to, and can do so only on their own terms.

At the end of the day, if it’s not the public schools’ business to teach tolerance, then whose is it? With all the hate crimes we hear about, I’m glad that some people are coming forward with a positive message, rather than thinly veiled declarations of hate.
Apr
29
1:00
AM

Langley
I have no “thinly veiled declarations of hate.” I will write more on this subject tomorrow.
Apr
29
1:04
AM

Langley
And by the way, “hate crimes” is a bunch of bologne. A crime is a crime - regardless of the perpretrater’s thoughts at the time of the crime. If you kill someone because they are gay, or if you kill someone because of other personal issues (divorce, etc), I see no difference between the crimes involved. I am not interested in thought-policiing everyone in regards to what their mindset was at the time of the crime. A crime is a crime, let’s punish them for it - not for what they thought while carrying out the crime.
Apr
29
3:19
AM

Becky
Langley: do you feel the same about terrorism then? That’s another “division” of crime that assumes a motive and mindset. Because that term has become an incredible catch-phrase since 9/11 under Bush.

The law as it stands depends upon the mindset of the criminal — was he/she insane? Was it a crime of passion? Did he/she intend to do this, or was it an accident? Was the goal terrorism, broadly defined? I don’t see why we shouldn’t recognize hate crimes as a distinct category.
Apr
29
4:00
AM

DavidShiffman
Langley,

Matthew Shephard was kidnapped, tied to a fence post, had rocks thrown at him, and bible passages read at him while onlookers laughed- all because he was gay. This is not just another crime.
Apr
29
9:31
AM

Sam Berninger
Actually, no, Shiffman, Mathew Shephard wasn’t killed because he was gay. That is what the media and everyone jumped on, but the investigation into his death has been ongoing and it was just revealed this past year that his death was most likely drug related. Of course, the mainstream media never breathed a word about it.
Apr
29
9:50
AM

Mark Harris
Wo so many issues at once but I would like to touch on the Church-State, tax exemption thing. This is one of the biggest crocks. Tax exemption is not your tax dollars going to church, its simply not forcing churches to have to pay homage to Ceasar, which is at the heart of religous freedom in America. Moreover, the political speech restrictions put on churches are definitely unconstitional and abhorent.
Apr
29
2:09
PM

Becky
Mark Harris: don’t you think that we can see tax exemption as our tax dollars at work? It means we have a smaller pool of tax dollars overall, right? And I thought that churches were getting some bonus money from the government… money to run charities and such.
Apr
29
3:15
PM

Langley
Heaven forbid we leave any stone unturned in our neverending quest to tax anything and everything.
Apr
29
5:26
PM

Mark Harris
Becky, lets be honest here, the concept of taxing churches is one about getting back at those Christian churches who happen to apply their moral beliefs in politics. Its based on the notion that religion is a private only matter with no public expression.

The ACLU (Anti-Christian Liberty Union) being the best example of this as they continue their crusade, aptly chosen term, to eliminate orthodox (small ‘o’) Christians from public expression.

On the hate speech point, in Canada it is now technically illegal for any minister to say that homosexuality is wrong. Now that’s freedom for you….
Apr
29
5:49
PM

Mike
David & Becky both of you are so ignorant and backwards it is scary.

Some quick points:

There is a seperation between church and state. That means that no church can be taxed, because if church taxation existed then certain religions might be taxed at different rates than others and the potential for all sorts of abuse of power would be ingrained in the system. This is evident in the writings of the founders of this country, which I can only assume you have never read. This nation was founded upon the principle of never taxing religion as it was used as a tool in Europe to suppress certain sects of Christianity, not to mention the Jews.

Secondly, what churches do and do not teach is none of your concern. They are free to be as tolerant or intolerant of gays as they please. It is not the duty of public education to counteract this societal belief. Public education should not be exposing kids that young to sexuality of any kind. We all support public education with our taxes, but we choose which churches to support or not support.

Thirdly, homosexuality is a genetic malfunction, not a natural state of life. One of the key definitions of life that you may or may not have learned in biology is the ability to reproduce. Now please don’t throw out the red herring of “straight people who are infertile”, because that assumes that a physical problem rather than a psychological inability should be the litmus test for an appropriate relationship. If everyone were a homosexual life on this planet would cease to exist so in no way can homosexuality be seen as positive aspect of life. That being said, there are many gay people out there and they are born that way. The alternative to not embracing their lifestyle isn’t to “stone them”, there is a middle ground that you might see if you stopped marinating all of your thoughts in rhetoric.
Apr
29
7:24
PM

Becky
“Homosexuality is a genetic malfunction.” And you’re calling ME backwards and scary??

I don’t see anything wrong with people loving other people, even if those other people aren’t of the “right” sex. I’d certainly never call it a “malfunction.” I guess not everyone thinks that the only reason they’re alive is to have sex and reproduce in an overpopulated world.

And my point on religious institutions had more to do with the problem that charities run through certain religions might not be that welcoming to certain segments of the population, regardless of what laws are in place.

Also, I still don’t see why you all think that the division of “hate crimes” is any different from crimes of passion, crimes of terrorism, etc… It’s just another label to help us identify the TYPE of criminal we’re dealing with (neo-Nazi, rejected lover, terrorist, etc.) After taking a criminology class, I had it drilled into my head that criminal laws are based on mens rea (guilty mind in Latin)… so it does seem important to me to identify what the criminal’s mindset was. It also seems useful to have some method (however imperfect) to document these types of crimes.
Apr
29
11:11
PM

Mike
Becky that is a scientific fact, homosexuality is a genetic abnormality, that doesn’t mean gay people aren’t to be respected and treated fairly. I don’t think you have much of a background in basic biology.

“. . . that charities run through certain religions might not be that welcoming to certain segments of the population”

As is there right under the law.

“It’s just another label to help us identify the TYPE of criminal we’re dealing with . . .”

Exactly, and thus is dicriminatory under the law. The type of criminal is irrelevant to the crime committed. Murder for money and murder out of racist rage is the exact same crime and should be punished exactly the same way, if you believe in equality that is.
Apr
30
2:54
AM

Becky
First of all, basic biology doesn’t label things as “malfunctions” so much as variations — we might well find out that there is a biological/ evolutionary justification for homosexuality. And as you say, if homosexuality is a biological fact, how is it NOT natural? (And I’ve had plenty of ‘basic biology,’ thanks).

And I thought Mark Harris said that such charities under the law weren’t supposed to disciminate if using federal funds? I’m confused, I haven’t kept up with the in’s & out’s of the law as pertaining to this… if they ARE allowed to discriminate, that seems like a good reason why social safety net programs shouldn’t be handed over solely to religious institutions.

And “equality” in the way of punishing crimes doesn’t make sense here. It IS all about the type of criminal. That’s why we draw a distinction between 1st and 2nd degree murder, and it’s why we take into consideration murder in the name of self-defense, or murder egged on by abuse (the “battered wife syndrome” defense, for example). If someone kills another person on accident, we don’t punish that “equally” with someone who seeks out and murders in cold blood.
Apr
30
11:24
AM

Mike
“First of all, basic biology doesn’t label things as “malfunctions” so much as variations. . .”

The inability to reproduce is a malfunction under every conceivable scenario. I understand it pains you to be so blunt and honest about things for fear of offending but I am not restricted in that way. Not being able to pass on your genetic code in the form of offspring is a genetic failure. That doesn’t mean people who are gay are lesser human beings, no more than people who have cystic filbrosis are lesser human beings. Why not call it what it obviously is?

“. . . how is it NOT natural?”

Well then everything in the entire universe is natural under that definition. By natural I don’t mean occuring in nautre as it is a well known fact that other speices exhibit homosexual behavior, but rather I mean it is not a normal function of life that would perpetuate humanity (or any other specie).

“. . . that seems like a good reason why social safety net programs shouldn’t be handed over solely to religious institutions.”

I agree nothing should be solely handed over to anyone, but religious charities shouldn’t be discriminated against when they seek funds for the federal government.

“And “equality” in the way of punishing crimes doesn’t make sense here. It IS all about the type of criminal.”

So you are saying that a man who hates black people should recieve more jail time when he murders than a man who just wanted to rob the guy? That is thought-crime and is completely against everything this nation was founded upon. My God in heaven! What do you propose next, having people take a test to determine their level of prejudice against various groups? That is extremely dangerous thinking. As much as it may disgust you, people have right in this nation to be racist, to hate other people for no damn good reason. Laws are designed to deter/punish crime. You cannot deter thought and punishing thought is an evil perversion of this country’s ideals.

If ever wonder why people push back so hard against “progressive ideas” this is why. Because they are more dangerous and damaging than anything they seek to misguidedly cure.
Apr
30
1:32
PM

Becky
This is ridiculous. You act as though homosexuality means that one can’t reproduce, which isn’t true (take for example the case of a CA woman, who went to a fertility clinic with her female partner, and was turned away on “religious beliefs”). People have had homosexual and bisexual relationships for as long as recorded history, and still managed to pass on their genes in many cases.

And your description of “thought crime” verges on the absurd. Of course, if you bothered to read my posts, you’d see that we already DO punish the thought. We punish criminals who THOUGHT ABOUT their crimes before committing them, who planned them in cold blood (that would be murder 1). We punish them more harshly than we do those who murder “in passion” — that would be murder 2. So before you throw out the idea of hate crimes, you really have to justify why we should always punish the “same crime” in the same way. Killing in a botched robbery vs. torturing and killing someone because he/she is gay, those are VERY different crimes, and it’s not surprising that we would invent new categories as we recognize new types of criminals. Kind of like how we punish a criminal who blows up a bus in order to inspire fear as a “terrorist,” but we wouldn’t give that name to someone who was insane and did the same act (nor would we punish them in the same way).

This isn’t thought crime, it’s MOTIVE.
Apr
30
5:56
PM

Mike
“This is ridiculous. You act as though homosexuality means that one can’t reproduce . . .”

No, if you read my previous comments you would have noticed this:
“Thirdly, homosexuality is a genetic malfunction, not a natural state of life. One of the key definitions of life that you may or may not have learned in biology is the ability to reproduce. Now please don’t throw out the red herring of “straight people who are infertile”, because that assumes that a physical problem rather than a psychological inability should be the litmus test for an appropriate relationship.”

And it should be noted that without modern techniques of artificial insemenation that homosexuals would not reproduce at all.

“People have had homosexual and bisexual relationships for as long as recorded history, and still managed to pass on their genes in many cases.”

Certainly they have, but it has yet to be determined if these genes are latent traits in all or most people or they are passed down by homosexuals that reproduce.

“This isn’t thought crime, it’s MOTIVE.”

It is not motive because motive is used to determine guilt, not to determine punishment. The difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder and the difference between simple murder and a “hate crime” is quite vast. A hate crime adds time to the years served, thus it is punishment only for your thoughts.

I am going to say it again, in this country, whether you liberals like it or not we have never punished people for what they think, even if it is disgusting and wrong. If you start down this path, what is to prevent people like me from passing a law that would outlaw idiotic, unconstitutional thought and thus locking you up? Thought is legal and always will be. The idea that you would send someone to jail for hating a certain type of person is disturbing.
Apr
30
10:06
PM

Becky
I’m completely confused as to why you think that “hate crime” distinctions pave the way for “thought crimes” of 1984. You seem to miss the point that 1st and 2nd degree murders also depend upon one’s thoughts — did one PLAN a murder, or commit it in an impaired state of mind? I still don’t think you’ve offered a convincing argument that shows the “hate crime” distinction to be different in KIND from the 1st/ 2nd degree murder distinction.

Also, I didn’t suggest that artificial insemination is natural, but clearly not every homosexual person in history was rendered effectively infertile because of their sexual orientation.

If you want to talk about dangerous tendencies — how about the dangerous tendency of suppressing a group’s history because you don’t agree with them? If you start banning books from public schools that teach tolerance of gays, then what’s to stop people from banning books with similar messages about racial/ethnic difference, interracial relationships, etc.? Or maybe someone will come along arguing that children shouldn’t be allowed to check out picture books in which girls are depicted as playing “unfeminine” roles, because such behavior isn’t “natural” by their definition.
May
6
1:12
PM

Emily
Becky, I think there is an important difference that you are missing regarding the midset of the criminal. While I would agree that determining the state of mind of the perpetrator is important it alloting his or her punishment, traditional understandings of the 1st, 2nd, etc degrees of murder deal with the level of guilt the individual possesses in the act. The court’s interest lies in WHETHER they chose the action, not WHY they chose the action. The differences between the degrees lie in the level of judgment or rationality of the criminal’s choice. Under this scheme, a premeditated crime based on race would be punished more harshly than an impulsive crime based on race, but not more so than another premeditated crime of a similar nature that had nothing to do with any sort of generalized prejudice.

I would agree, however, that this idea is changing in the minds of many of those who interpret the law as well as in the legislation itself. For some, they find an increasing number of conditions that mitigate a murderer’s responsibility for their actions (I just learned that some governments charge a mother less harshly for killing her own infant if she claims post-partum depression affected her!). For others, they are simply grasping at straws to ensure the death penalty can be applied for the most heinous crimes as we increasingly tighten the legal hoops a prosecutor must jump through to secure a sentence of death. I find both to be troubling developments to a clear sense of justice.

Hopefully that clears up some of the confusion! A lot of these ideas are far better expressed by C.S. Lewis in his essay comparing retributive and humanitarian ideals of punishment, which can be found here (http://www.angelfire.com/pro/lewiscs/humanitarian.html) if you so desire more reading on the concept. I know this essay changed the way I looked at my own notions of the proper machinations of justice & mercy.
Oct
9
7:54
PM

Pam
Hi. Okay, there are a lot of living things that are not “right” such as: two headed animals, animals that have both sex organs, humans that are born with both sex organs, homosexuals. Because they are not “right” are you suppose to hate them?
We humans persecuted Christ and he died for our sins. If that is not love, I do not know what is. We are to be tolerant of everyone. I don’t like it that people live together before marriage or get pregnant out of wedlock, but I am tolerant of this. I can’t tell them what to do.
By the way, since when was “living together before marriage” no longer a sin? We all sin! No one is better than the other. Thanks.