Christian
leaders (e.g. Albert Mohler) are at a disadvantage in debating homosexuality.
That’s because the average Christian leader doesn’t feel comfortable describing
what homosexuals actually do, much less quoting homosexuals when they describe
their sexuality activities in gross, vulgar terms.
So this
becomes asymmetrical warfare, where the homosexual lobbyist can frame the
debate without fear of refutation. He knows the average Christian leader isn’t
going to call his bluff. As a result, the general public has a very innocent
view of the homosexual lifestyle. Heterosexuals know about heterosexual vice, but not about homosexual vice.
However,
the Bible itself doesn’t hesitate to graphically describe immorality, when the
occasion demands. Sometimes we need to sacrifice decorum in the interests of
candor. Otherwise, we lose the battle through unilateral disarmament.
Good point. If Christians really delved into the dirty details, they'd become desensitized, and then homosexuality would no longer seem so disgusting, and then maybe Christians wouldn't fight so hard against equal rights for homosexuals. To know your enemy is to surrender. Got to keep those blinders firmly in place!
ReplyDeleteGood point. Sodomites have really delved into sexually immoral acts, they've become desensitized to basic moral standards, and male-on-male anal sex (among other morally deviant behavior) no longer seems so disgusting to them, and maybe sodomites wouldn't fight so hard to make sodomy morally licit if they weren't so desensitized to basic moral standards. To know sodomy is to suppress morality. Got to keep those blinders firmly in place!
DeleteIf we are going to engage the secular homosexual I find it helpful to look at the unhealthy consequences of gay sex. The CDC stats are staggering in its data on the diseases this kind of thing leads to.
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
DeleteAt the risk of coming off crassly, male sodomites drill down hard into other male sodomites, often barebacking it, and thereby potentially causing anal tears as well as significantly exposing themselves and/or their partner(s) to infection from diseases like HIV, HPV (which in turn could lead to anal cancer), hepatitis C, and so forth. Using a condom can help, but many will say they don't wish to use condoms (at least for part of the anal intercourse) because it isn't as pleasurable.
Not to mention there are medical risks associated with other practices like fisting and rimming.
That’s because the average Christian leader doesn’t feel comfortable describing what homosexuals actually do, much less quoting homosexuals when they describe their sexuality activities in gross, vulgar terms.
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely. Except it's not just homosexuals - it's heterosexuals too. Which is one reason why sodomy has become 'that thing gay people do'. Plenty of heteros engage in sodomy. Do you condemn that as well?
That said, there are homosexual-culture-specific ills that should be addressed.
However, there's more problems going on:
* The habit of treating homosexuals as a single group, rather than as individuals, and subgroups.
* Equating 'being a homosexual' with 'being an LGBT lunatic activist', even if it is often true.
* Ignoring heterosexual vices and sodomy.
* A lack of compassion insofar as gays are not approached as people who have a proclivity towards a certain kind of sin, but often as people who are The Enemy.
Crude said:
Delete"Plenty of heteros engage in sodomy. Do you condemn that as well?"
For starters, the same or similar medical risks would apply to anyone who has anal sex.
Also, among male homosexuals anal sex is the norm. That's not the case with heterosexuals in which the norm is vaginal sex.
I might come back to this a bit later when I have more time.
"The habit of treating homosexuals as a single group, rather than as individuals, and subgroups...Equating 'being a homosexual' with 'being an LGBT lunatic activist', even if it is often true...A lack of compassion insofar as gays are not approached as people who have a proclivity towards a certain kind of sin, but often as people who are The Enemy."
I'm afraid I don't see how anyone is doing this here.
More importantly, keep in mind the context of Steve's public post. As I read it, it isn't about private or personal discussions we may have with gay family, friends, co-workers, etc. It isn't about how we might act, say, if a friend confided in us that he was struggling with homosexuality or somesuch. Rather Steve's post is in response to very public homosexual words and actions which would seek to legitimize and legalize sins like "same-sex marriage". It's in response to homosexuals who are quite vehemently assaulting traditional "heteronormative" beliefs, values, and moralities including sexuality. At least that's how I read the post.
Crude said:
Delete"Plenty of heteros engage in sodomy. Do you condemn that as well?"
At least one of the homosexual men would be in a receptive role in anal sex among MSM. The receptive homosexual man behaves as if he were a woman. He effectively plays the female. This blurs gender roles (and all this would entail) in a way in which heterosexual anal sex might not. This is not to say heterosexual anal sex might not be wrong for other reasons though.
I might be wrong on the following two points, but as far as I can tell: (1) homosexual anal sex is explicitly condemned in the Bible whereas it seems to me the Bible is silent on heterosexual anal sex, and (2) homosexual behavior in general is linked with idolatry in Rom 1. I'm no Bible scholar but it seems to me one might even argue the apostle Paul regards homosexuality here as a paradigm case of idolatry. However, again, this isn't to say heterosexual anal sex isn't necessarily wrong for other reasons.
Crude said:
Delete"Plenty of heteros engage in sodomy. Do you condemn that as well?"
It seems to me the receptive homosexual male transforms his masculinity into femininity. If so, then there's a loss of what's normal for a gain of what's abnormal. A perversion of biblical gender and sexuality.
"The habit of treating homosexuals as a single group, rather than as individuals, and subgroups."
Of course, there are differences (e.g. LGBT i.e. lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender). However, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders often tie their political and legal fortunes to one another. More generally, they themselves self-identify as a single group or movement when it's expedient for them to do so.
Crude said:
Delete"Plenty of heteros engage in sodomy. Do you condemn that as well?"
Speaking for myself, I'm revolted by the idea of anal sex and sodomy, whether homo or hetero or otherwise. I suspect this is the case for many others. But is the feeling of revulsion objectively morally justifiable? That might be another interesting line to pursue.
Crude
Delete"Plenty of heteros engage in sodomy. Do you condemn that as well?"
Yes.
"* The habit of treating homosexuals as a single group, rather than as individuals, and subgroups."
i) Homosexuals present a monolithic front when they demand equality for homosexuals.
ii) All forms of homosexuality are immoral.
"Equating 'being a homosexual' with 'being an LGBT lunatic activist', even if it is often true."
LGBT activists present arguments on behalf of trans and homos generally.
"Ignoring heterosexual vices and sodomy."
What heterosexual vices am I ignoring?
"A lack of compassion insofar as gays are not approached as people who have a proclivity towards a certain kind of sin, but often as people who are The Enemy."
They make themselves the enemy when they oppose heteronormative social values and legal arrangements.
RWH,
DeleteAlso, among male homosexuals anal sex is the norm. That's not the case with heterosexuals in which the norm is vaginal sex.
And among lesbians, I'd imagine oral is more the norm. Which I recall still counts as sodomy.
I'm afraid I don't see how anyone is doing this here.
I'm talking about something that is an issue generally, this wasn't me walking into this thread saying 'all of you are specifically guilty of this'. But it's absolutely an issue with a good number of socons on this topic.
This is not to say heterosexual anal sex might not be wrong for other reasons though.
Sure, there's at least some surface level distinction between heterosexual and homosexual sex. But historically, sodomy caught up far, far more than homosexual sex.
But is the feeling of revulsion objectively morally justifiable? That might be another interesting line to pursue.
It goes beyond anal sex, and it's not about feelings of revulsion. This gets into philosophical arguments. But historically, sodomy covered far more ground than homosexual sex, even anal sex.
Steve,
Deletei) Homosexuals present a monolithic front when they demand equality for homosexuals.
Well, right there is a problem. Why are you saying they're 'demanding equality', and then acting like it's a bad thing? That's a recipe for losing the argument badly in today's culture, before you even make it. Why concede this is 'about equality', rather than a warped view of it?
Second, even if they did present a monolithic front - why would that justify treating them as anything but individuals, especially when doing so seems to harm your rhetorical effectiveness? And I wonder about that monolithic front. Did you see the anti-gay-marriage march in France? You actually had some gays supporting it.
LGBT activists present arguments on behalf of trans and homos generally.
So they do. What does that matter? Why does that justify equating the two? Especially when equating the two ends up making it sound like you're opposing homosexuals just for, in essence, having homosexual desires (which they claim, not without evidence, they did not choose to have)?
What heterosexual vices am I ignoring?
This isn't about your post, or you specifically. For all I know, and I would not be surprised, you rail against heterosexual sodomy, heterosexual abuses of marriage, or careless divorce (I assume you approve of some divorce, naturally. I do not know whether you approve of intentionally childless marriages.), etc.
But I see a lot of people who act as if the institution of marriage (or the culture in general) is under attack by 'homosexuals', rather than it being the latest attack in what has otherwise been a heterosexual meltdown. Maybe they do that because of a diversity of views on things like the rightness of divorce, etc, and so they try to find the most common ground with which to unite and argue against gay marriage with. I don't think that ultimately works. It's like opposing male on male sodomy, but male on female (or female on male, or female on female) is accepted as okay. You run into an inconsistency issue, one that's obvious to everyone, quickly.
They make themselves the enemy when they oppose heteronormative social values and legal arrangements.
I think this attitude is a mistake, and not just when it comes to gay marriage. It's just particularly bad here, for two reasons: it cripples your rhetorical effectiveness and makes you come off as a bully when you target a whole group of people who do not have control over their preferences, and you end up neglecting the possibility of approaching people and trying to reason with them, just because they're homosexual.
Have you ever thought that, maybe, homosexuals are victims in the sense that the LGBT groups out there prey on them? That they feel like they have nowhere else to go and pretty much have to become the crazy activist, because not just liberals but conservatives expect that of them?
Here's another question. Despite initially many people opposing gay marriage, etc, in 1-2 decades, there's been a dramatic turnaround. What do you think the reasons for that is? Do you think socons have made any big screwups in their approach?
Crude
Delete“Well, right there is a problem. Why are you saying they're 'demanding equality', and then acting like it's a bad thing?”
Because we should treat like things alike and unalike things unalike.
“Second, even if they did present a monolithic front - why would that justify treating them as anything but individuals…”
Because both sides are framing this as a public policy issue. Identity politics. How to treat homosexuals as a group, en masse, as a matter of law.
“Especially when equating the two ends up making it sound like you're opposing homosexuals just for, in essence, having homosexual desires (which they claim, not without evidence, they did not choose to have)?”
There’s such a thing as evil desires. Take the desire of a child molester to molest little kids.
“But I see a lot of people who act as if the institution of marriage (or the culture in general) is under attack by 'homosexuals', rather than it being the latest attack in what has otherwise been a heterosexual meltdown.”
That’s a false dichotomy.
“You run into an inconsistency issue, one that's obvious to everyone, quickly.”
There’s no inconsistency in trying to do what’s politically feasible while declining to do what’s politically futile. In a political system of popular sovereignty and majority rule, there won’t be the votes to outlaw popular vices.
But the fact that we shouldn’t squander our time fighting lost causes doesn’t mean we should make no effort to ban or deter certain socially-destructive vices in cases where that’s politically realistic.
“It's just particularly bad here, for two reasons: it cripples your rhetorical effectiveness and makes you come off as a bully…”
That’s ironic consider how the homosexual lobby bullies dissenters.
“…when you target a whole group of people who do not have control over their preferences, and you end up neglecting.”
What about serial rapists, serial killers, and pedophiles? Can they control their preferences?
“Have you ever thought that, maybe, homosexuals are victims in the sense that the LGBT groups out there prey on them?”
You mimic the permissive attitude of bishops who had compassion on abusive priests rather than treating their conduct as criminal conduct.
“Here's another question. Despite initially many people opposing gay marriage, etc, in 1-2 decades, there's been a dramatic turnaround. What do you think the reasons for that is?”
A failure to get the message out.
Steve,
DeleteBecause we should treat like things alike and unalike things unalike.
Maybe you don't understand my question.
Why are you defining *your own position* as one of 'denying equal rights' to people? Do you realize how horrible that sounds, and that's before we even get to the question of whether this is an accurate summary of the views opposing gay marriage, etc?
Because both sides are framing this as a public policy issue. Identity politics. How to treat homosexuals as a group, en masse, as a matter of law.
Terrible excuse, and it barely answers my question. Why treat all homosexuals as a monoithic group who can't be individually reasoned with? Do you just cut them off intellectually as lost causes?
There’s such a thing as evil desires. Take the desire of a child molester to molest little kids.
Sure. Again, doesn't answer my question. Do you have any evil desires? Should people oppose you on those grounds?
That’s a false dichotomy.
How? How is it a false dichotomy? Explain this, please.
There’s no inconsistency in trying to do what’s politically feasible while declining to do what’s politically futile. In a political system of popular sovereignty and majority rule, there won’t be the votes to outlaw popular vices.
Oh really? So in areas where there's a majority backing homosexual marriage, your personal view is 'give up the fight'? Stop arguing against gay marriage? C'mon.
What's more, you're treating this as a 'political' fight - but you and I both know it goes way beyond that. It's a social fight. It's a religious fight. And by the way, gay marriage was a hopeless political fight 1-2 decades ago. Now it's not. Because no one decided 'it's a lost cause'.
That’s ironic consider how the homosexual lobby bullies dissenters.
And when that becomes evident, there's a backlash. Remember how the Chik-fil-a event went down? Except usually it's the socons who ineptly come off as bullies or wannabe bullies.
What about serial rapists, serial killers, and pedophiles? Can they control their preferences?
Can adulterers, fans of pornography, and more? Again, are you saying you have no negative desires? Note: I'm not saying you can't control them. You have no temptations to speak of?
You mimic the permissive attitude of bishops who had compassion on abusive priests rather than treating their conduct as criminal conduct.
You mimic the words of someone who wants to change the subject. Not taking your bait.
I mimic the attitude of someone who tries to reach and communicate with sinners to get them to change their minds. Do you find this attitude to be wrong?
A failure to get the message out.
Oh really? Not, you know, a crappy message? No problems with the rhetoric or delivery?
Wait, let me guess: Akin and Mourdock lost their last elections totally because of a failure to raise enough money. Not, you know... saying something stupid? Bad rhetoric? Bad representation?
"Do you have any evil desires? Should people oppose you on those grounds?"
DeleteIf Steve was trying to legistlate his evil desires, then yes, people should oppose him on those grounds.
If Steve was trying to legistlate his evil desires, then yes, people should oppose him on those grounds.
DeleteThey absolutely should. But we shouldn't attack Steve just because he has such and such temptations through no fault of his own, or act as if his having any temptations means in and of itself he's beyond rational discussion.
I am not saying to drop the fight against gay marriage. I am not saying to normalize sodomy or same-sex sexual behavior. I am against all these things. But I'm tired of seeing social conservatives lose on these issues. We're not just losing because of a 'failure to get the message out'. We lose in part because of how we present ourselves, what rhetoric we use, what language we lose.
Crude said:
Delete"But historically, sodomy caught up far, far more than homosexual sex...It goes beyond anal sex..."
What's "historically" true may or may not be relevant to the modern debate. It's fairly off-topic to discuss this from a historical perspective though.
However, if you want to include other sexual immoralities besides anal sex (hetero or homo) then I don't necessarily have a problem. I don't have a problem condemning adultery or bestiality, for instance. But again absent further explanation this isn't directly relevant to the topic at hand.
"But I'm tired of seeing social conservatives lose on these issues. We're not just losing because of a 'failure to get the message out'. We lose in part because of how we present ourselves, what rhetoric we use, what language we lose."
As far as this is concerned, LGBTs are hardly innocent. Many gays bully heterosexuals. For many gays it's an all-out culture war to say the least. They've gone on the attack against otherwise respectful traditional American individuals and families.
Also, this strikes me as saying something like, "I'm personally against adultery, but let's behave politely toward adulterers when they want to discuss the merits of adultery or when they seek to legalize adultery or the like." I'd be more concerned if there wasn't a moral outcry here!
Crude
Delete“Why are you defining *your own position* as one of 'denying equal rights' to people?”
Because they don’t have a right to do X in the first place.
“Do you realize how horrible that sounds, and that's before we even get to the question of whether this is an accurate summary of the views opposing gay marriage, etc?”
Actually, it’s easy to come up with illustrations in which a blanket appeal to equal rights is preposterous
“Why treat all homosexuals as a monoithic group who can't be individually reasoned with? Do you just cut them off intellectually as lost causes?”
No, we can’t individually reason with millions(?) of individuals. That’s not the nature of mass communication.
“Sure. Again, doesn't answer my question. Do you have any evil desires? Should people oppose you on those grounds?”
You’re the one who interjected desires into the discussion, not me. And you treated (allegedly) involuntary desires as a mitigating factor.
“How? How is it a false dichotomy? Explain this, please.”
Opposing homosexuality doesn’t prevent one from opposing the “marriage meltdown” as well.
“Oh really? So in areas where there's a majority backing homosexual marriage, your personal view is 'give up the fight'? Stop arguing against gay marriage? C'mon.”
As a matter of fact, I think that debate is probably a lost cause in blue states.
“What's more, you're treating this as a 'political' fight - but you and I both know it goes way beyond that. It's a social fight. It's a religious fight.”
I’m discussing law.
“Can adulterers, fans of pornography, and more? Again, are you saying you have no negative desires? Note: I'm not saying you can't control them. You have no temptations to speak of?”
I’m responding to you on your own terms. Try to keep track of your own argument.
“I mimic the attitude of someone who tries to reach and communicate with sinners to get them to change their minds. Do you find this attitude to be wrong?”
No, you mimic the attitude of someone who’s trying to promote the compromised position of your denomination.
“Wait, let me guess: Akin and Mourdock lost their last elections totally because of a failure to raise enough money. Not, you know... saying something stupid? Bad rhetoric? Bad representation?”
Akin gave a bad answer. By contrast, Mourdock gave a straight answer to a tough question. There was nothing wrong with Mourdock’s answer.
Ideally, his answer would benefit from more context, more explanation. But televised campaign debates with 30-second answers don’t permit that. He had to answer off the cuff. He did about as well as he could under the circumstances.
Mourdock is not a Christian bioethicist. How many Christian bioethicists run for public office?
Bill Buckley could have given a more nuanced answer. Of course, when Buckley ran for mayor of NYC, he was trounced in the polls.
Rick Santorum can explain his positions better than most socially conservative candidates, but he still lost the primary.
Steve,
DeleteBecause they don’t have a right to do X in the first place.
Then it's not an equal rights question, now is it? So why are you saying you're denying them equal rights?
Actually, it’s easy to come up with illustrations in which a blanket appeal to equal rights is preposterous
It's even easier to avoid the trainwreck of having to explain what you mean by being in favor of denying people equal rights.
You’re the one who interjected desires into the discussion, not me. And you treated (allegedly) involuntary desires as a mitigating factor.
Mitigating how? I don't excuse someone's acts just because they have certain inclinations, even if they're born with them. I do think that having desires beyond one's control is a mitigating factor with regards to having those desires in that capacity.
What, you disagree?
Opposing homosexuality doesn’t prevent one from opposing the “marriage meltdown” as well.
No, it doesn't. I'm talking about rhetorical effectiveness and consistency in message.
As a matter of fact, I think that debate is probably a lost cause in blue states.
Wonderful. Was it a lost cause for gay marriage when those states were opposed to gay marriage? Do you think one reason for the success of liberals versus conservatives may be due to conservatives tending to regard areas as 'lost causes' that they give up on, and liberals to hardly ever do this?
I’m discussing law.
And law is affected by social and religious attitudes.
I’m responding to you on your own terms. Try to keep track of your own argument.
It's an interesting definition of response when you don't answer the question I'm asking of you. Kinda seems more like a dodge.
No, you mimic the attitude of someone who’s trying to promote the compromised position of your denomination.
Oh really? By all means, tell me what my compromised position is here. For the record, I'm against gay marriage, against cultural acceptance of both homosexual and heterosexual sodomy, and conditionally against civil unions as well.
What compromise did I make other than criticizing rhetorical failures of fellow socons? Let's hear it, or let's see you withdraw that slight.
Akin gave a bad answer. By contrast, Mourdock gave a straight answer to a tough question. There was nothing wrong with Mourdock’s answer.
Ideally, his answer would benefit from more context, more explanation. But televised campaign debates with 30-second answers don’t permit that. He had to answer off the cuff. He did about as well as he could under the circumstances.
Yeah, sure. He did really well, choosing to answer in a way that was very easily taken way, way out of context, and that he could not hope to explain adequately in the given conditions. Your definition of 'doing well' leaves a lot to be desired.
Mourdock is not a Christian bioethicist. How many Christian bioethicists run for public office?
You don't need to be a Christian bioethicist to have a firm grasp of rhetoric. In fact, 'firm grasp of rhetoric' is something you'd EXPECT a politician to have, and a bioethicist to lack. I'm not asking for politicians or socons to speak with strict intellectual accuracy. If anything, the opposite.
Stop getting up in arms over the fact that I'm Catholic and criticizing how socons handle these issues. I'm not some secret apologist for freaking Lambda Legal. I'm making justified criticisms of a social movement that is ailing and has been ailing for years. Are you really going to tell me that there is no failing on the part of socons other than 'failure to get the word out'?
And I AGREE with you that a reluctance to talk about the dirty details of sex has hobbled socons. I agree with a lot of what you say. I am not attacking you, I'm attacking bad maneuvers.
RWH,
DeleteWhat's "historically" true may or may not be relevant to the modern debate. It's fairly off-topic to discuss this from a historical perspective though.
However, if you want to include other sexual immoralities besides anal sex (hetero or homo) then I don't necessarily have a problem. I don't have a problem condemning adultery or bestiality, for instance. But again absent further explanation this isn't directly relevant to the topic at hand.
Sure it's relevant - because if you oppose 'sodomy', and make it clear that sodomy is a heterosexual issue too, you've lessened the ability for anyone to regard you as singling out homosexual immorality, or being inconsistent. Yes, you do run risk of upsetting some heterosexuals who are themselves inconsistent (I've dealt with Christians who were adamant that anal sex with their wife was A-OK, it's only wrong when it's a guy.)
As far as this is concerned, LGBTs are hardly innocent. Many gays bully heterosexuals. For many gays it's an all-out culture war to say the least. They've gone on the attack against otherwise respectful traditional American individuals and families.
Here's the thing: I agree. They are bullies. Look at Dan Savage. However, two problems. First, the world isn't fair - right now, LGBT groups can get away with things Christians can't, rhetorically. Second, it's a mistake to think or talk as if all gay people cash out to 'LGBT activists'.
I suggest that if you've never thought of ways to try to intellectually persuade gays that they are wrong - not merely defeat them in debate, but convince them, personally, to change their attitudes - you may not be approaching this question optimally.
Also, this strikes me as saying something like, "I'm personally against adultery, but let's behave politely toward adulterers when they want to discuss the merits of adultery or when they seek to legalize adultery or the like." I'd be more concerned if there wasn't a moral outcry here!
This isn't about being PC or 'polite'. It's about Christian responsibility and rhetorical effectiveness. We have a duty to homosexuals to try and convince them that same-sex sexual behavior is wrong, AND to make space for those who agree and attempt to remain celibate, etc, in our churches and in our lives. We have a duty to try and reach people so our message is heard. Do you disagree?
Crude
Delete“Then it's not an equal rights question, now is it? So why are you saying you're denying them equal rights?”
Since homosexual lobbyists say it’s an equal rights issue, we have to respond to the equal rights claim.
“It's even easier to avoid the trainwreck of having to explain what you mean by being in favor of denying people equal rights.”
To the contrary, we need to confront that squarely. One tactic liberals use is to overgeneralize. Because some forms of discrimination are wrong, the very word “discrimination” acquires an invidious connotation. They then simply brand a certain position “discriminatory,” as if that makes it ipso facto wrong. We need to challenge that simplistic tactic with counterexamples.
“What, you disagree?”
I disagree with your assertion that homosexuals have homosexual impulses through no fault of their own. I disagree with you driving a wedge between illicit actions and allegedly licit desires, as if the desire is innocent as long as we don’t act on it.
“Do you think one reason for the success of liberals versus conservatives may be due to conservatives tending to regard areas as 'lost causes' that they give up on, and liberals to hardly ever do this?”
It became a lost cause in states like California and Massachusetts due to judicial activism.
“It's an interesting definition of response when you don't answer the question I'm asking of you. Kinda seems more like a dodge.”
For some odd reason, you tried to derail a discussion about regulating behavior into a discussing about desires. That’s a non sequitur. To say the state has the right to regulate certain types of social behavior while it doesn’t have the right to regulate beliefs or desires is hardly inconsistent.
In addition, as I’ve often said, there’s a difference between criminalizing a behavior, decriminalizing a behavior, and making it a Constitutional right, opposition to which becomes a hate crime.
“Oh really? By all means, tell me what my compromised position is here.”
It’s the split-the-difference position reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on homosexuality.
“Yeah, sure. He did really well, choosing to answer in a way that was very easily taken way, way out of context, and that he could not hope to explain adequately in the given conditions.”
If he’d issued a white paper with a tightly reasoned argument and lots of judicious caveats, do you seriously think the media wouldn’t distort and demonize his position?
You need to stop blaming conscientious politicians (a rare breed) and begin blaming voters. Many voters are immune to reason. They will only change their minds when they suffer from the consequences of their foolish votes. And even then, some voters never learn from sorry experience. Take California.
steve,
DeleteSince homosexual lobbyists say it’s an equal rights issue, we have to respond to the equal rights claim.
So, you let your opponents pick the language you'll use? Okay - abortion rights advocates say it's a choice issue, and a reproductive health issue. I guess you'll just have to call yourself anti-choice and anti-reproductive-health now, right?
C'mon. It's a mistake to say you're "against equal rights for gays". You're letting yourself be caricatured when you say that.
To the contrary, we need to confront that squarely. One tactic liberals use is to overgeneralize.
If they think they can get conservatives to say "Yes, I'm anti-equal rights!" so easily, it's clear why they overgeneralize. It's like getting your opponent to cripple himself.
We need to challenge that simplistic tactic with counterexamples.
No, you need to answer simplistic tactics with simplistic tactics of your own - and the counterexamples aren't simple. Trying to defend being "against equal rights" is a disaster. Avoid the language. Stop letting your political opponents dictate how you talk.
I disagree with your assertion that homosexuals have homosexual impulses through no fault of their own. I disagree with you driving a wedge between illicit actions and allegedly licit desires, as if the desire is innocent as long as we don’t act on it.
No, I didn't say that the desire is innocent so long as we don't act on it. I said that having certain desires or inclinations through no fault of one's own does affect the culpability.
I pointed out that you yourself - unless you hav a far higher opinion of yourself than I think you do - have some illicit desires. Are you automatically to be shunned over having them? Even if you resist them, even if you do what you can to lessen them?
What should someone with a desire for sodomy do? You cannot possibly be telling me 'just stop having those desires!' as if it's that easy.
It became a lost cause in states like California and Massachusetts due to judicial activism.
Which only was possible given their social, cultural and religious climates.
For some odd reason, you tried to derail a discussion about regulating behavior into a discussing about desires. That’s a non sequitur.
No, it's not, especially not when my focus is on rhetorical approach, effectiveness, and how to deal with individuals. You seem to think that the rhetorical and communal approaches on this subject over the past few decades is just peachy, we've done nothing wrong, it's just that we didn't get the message out. I'm saying that's wrong.
It’s the split-the-difference position reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on homosexuality.
DeleteAgain with the attempt at a derail. Again, not taking the bait.
Tell me what my compromise has been. Don't try tea leaf reading the catechism as a proxy for me, because I haven't cited Church teaching here once. You know I haven't compromised anything. Why are you fighting me on this?
If he’d issued a white paper with a tightly reasoned argument and lots of judicious caveats, do you seriously think the media wouldn’t distort and demonize his position?
No doubt they would. Which is why a tightly reasoning argument and lots of judicious caveats isn't what I've been suggesting. I expressly said that strict intellectual accuracy wasn't the point here - it's about rhetoric, image and presentation.
You need to stop blaming conscientious politicians (a rare breed) and begin blaming voters. Many voters are immune to reason. They will only change their minds when they suffer from the consequences of their foolish votes.
And you need to learn that social conservatives are entirely capable of screwing up and needing to fix their message and approach, because the liberals do - and that is why they succeed. Mourdock and Akin are just convenient examples of politicians who have screwed up. These mistakes happen at the grass roots level.
Again: you are telling me that there has been no mistake in tactics, no mistake in message, none, nyet. Just stay the course, keep doing exactly what you've been doing, and what - hope that works? That's insanity. Why can't you even entertain the possibility that the approach needs to be changed?
Crude said:
Delete"Sure it's relevant - because if you oppose 'sodomy', and make it clear that sodomy is a heterosexual issue too, you've lessened the ability for anyone to regard you as singling out homosexual immorality, or being inconsistent."
I've never said it wasn't a "heterosexual issue".
Nevertheless it's a "homosexual issue" in ways in which it's not a "heterosexual issue" as I've already discussed above.
"However, two problems. First, the world isn't fair - right now, LGBT groups can get away with things Christians can't, rhetorically."
Not sure why you think this adds or clarifies anything. It's just stating the obvious.
"Second, it's a mistake to think or talk as if all gay people cash out to 'LGBT activists'."
Again, I've never claimed "all gay people cash out to 'LGBT activists'".
However many gays do "cash out to 'LGBT activists'" when it's expedient for them to do so. That's their prerogative in a democratic society. But it's our prerogative to defend ourselves when they do.
"I suggest that if you've never thought of ways to try to intellectually persuade gays that they are wrong - not merely defeat them in debate, but convince them, personally, to change their attitudes - you may not be approaching this question optimally."
Not that it's any of your business, but since you brought it up: I've lived in the Bay Area. I'm an alumnus of an infamously liberal university which is hugely supportive of LGBTs and where LGBTs have tremendous influence. I've taught for Teach for America which is also a well-known liberal organization and quite gay friendly to put it mildly. I'm currently in med school at a liberal university where we're not only regularly taught by but interact with homosexuals such as patients. I've done presentations and a poster in infectious disease, specifically, HIV/AIDS. In fact, I'll be going to a clinic next week which should involve directly working with LGBT patients. At the same time I've been involved in evangelism including to homosexuals. I have friends who are gay and have amicably shared the gospel with them which of course would involve trying to "personally...change their attitudes."
So, no, it's not merely an intellectual exercise in demonization or whatever wholly disconnected from real, living, breathing individual human beings for me. I suggest if you're trying to pigeon hole me as one of your "socons" or the like then you may not be approaching this discussion optimally.
Speaking of which, I hope you don't lump "socons" together into a single homogenous group.
"This isn't about being PC or 'polite'. It's about Christian responsibility and rhetorical effectiveness. We have a duty to homosexuals to try and convince them that same-sex sexual behavior is wrong, AND to make space for those who agree and attempt to remain celibate, etc, in our churches and in our lives. We have a duty to try and reach people so our message is heard. Do you disagree?"
For starters, you're assuming we aren't doing this.
Also, it's not an either/or issue. It's a both/and. It's possible for us to strongly oppose a LGBT agenda and defend traditional beliefs and values about the family and sexuality (including for example the terms in which the debate over marriage is framed by homosexuals vis-a-vis Christian leaders) at the very same time as we're strongly compassionate to LGBT as individuals both privately as well as publicly. These aren't mutually exclusive.
Crude
Delete“So, you let your opponents pick the language you'll use?”
Since LGBT-activists are demanding equal treatment, demanding that they should get to have or do whatever straights can have or do, the “equality” language is unavoidable.
“Okay - abortion rights advocates say it's a choice issue, and a reproductive health issue. I guess you'll just have to call yourself anti-choice and anti-reproductive-health now, right?”
Actually, prolifers do sometimes pick up on the “choice” language and turn it against abortionists. For instance, they point out that “pro-choice” isn’t really about freedom of choice since abortionists deny the child’s right to choose to live, or the right of the husband or boyfriend to keep the child.
“C'mon. It's a mistake to say you're ‘against equal rights for gays’. You're letting yourself be caricatured when you say that.”
To the contrary, sometimes we have to defang the opposition’s rhetoric by co-opting and correcting their rhetoric, instead of running away from their rhetoric. We need to show them and others that we’re not afraid of their rhetoric.
We also need to take the occasion to correct the simpleminded notion that everyone should be treated equally. For instance, just because Christians should have the right to practice their faith doesn’t mean that jihadists should have the right to practice their faith. Freedom of worship and freedom to be a suicide bomber are not equivalent.
“If they think they can get conservatives to say ‘Yes, I'm anti-equal rights!’ so easily, it's clear why they overgeneralize. It's like getting your opponent to cripple himself.”
That’s your truncated version. But I’m not suggesting we say “Yes, I’m anti-equal rights!” Rather, we should say, I’m against the right of homosexuals to be Boy Scout leaders, where they are in a position to abuse young boys. That violates the right of young boys not to be put at risk (to take one example).
“I pointed out that you yourself - unless you hav a far higher opinion of yourself than I think you do - have some illicit desires. Are you automatically to be shunned over having them?”
You’re the one who’s trying to shift the discussion from behavior to desire. That’s a diversion from the real issue.
Crude:
Delete“Mourdock and Akin are just convenient examples of politicians who have screwed up. These mistakes happen at the grass roots level.”
Akin screwed up, Mourdock didn’t. Mourdock was put in the impossible position where giving the right answer would cost him politically. Well, sometimes you find yourself forced into a situation where you must say or do the right thing even when that will be used unfairly against you. That’s one of those dilemmas where we’re tempted to compromise our principles. That’s where we have to say or do the right thing, consequences be damned, and leave the results to God.
Like a Gestapo officer who gives a priest a choice between picking one victim to be executed to save the rest, or refusing to pick one victim, in which case everyone will be executed.
If voters refuse to vote for ethical candidates, then they are to blame.
Since LGBT-activists are demanding equal treatment, demanding that they should get to have or do whatever straights can have or do, the “equality” language is unavoidable.
DeleteFunny - I thought they were demanding exceptional treatment, and that gay marriage was not and could never be straight marriage. They were asking not for an equality, but an impossibility and some treatment that was anything but equal.
Or do you think gay marriage == straight marriage in relevant senses?
Actually, prolifers do sometimes pick up on the “choice” language and turn it against abortionists. For instance, they point out that “pro-choice” isn’t really about freedom of choice since abortionists deny the child’s right to choose to live, or the right of the husband or boyfriend to keep the child.
What they do not do is let their opposition choose what terms they themselves will be defined as. Which is why they are 'pro-life' and object to 'anti-choice' as a term. Do you think this is a minor thing?
To the contrary, sometimes we have to defang the opposition’s rhetoric by co-opting and correcting their rhetoric, instead of running away from their rhetoric. We need to show them and others that we’re not afraid of their rhetoric.
Gay marriages getting legalized in multiple states. Steady progression towards gay marriage acceptance nationwide over the years.
Your methods have been tried. They are failing miserably. But hey, if you feel like you were brave because you willfully used rhetoric that they knew would harm your cause, that's all that matters in the end - right?
But I’m not suggesting we say “Yes, I’m anti-equal rights!” Rather, we should say, I’m against the right of homosexuals to be Boy Scout leaders, where they are in a position to abuse young boys. That violates the right of young boys not to be put at risk (to take one example).
Great, another method that is destroying the fight against gay marriage and general acceptance of the gay lifestyle. Unless you have hard and compelling data that homosexuals are significantly likely to abuse young boys in their care, playing that card is suicide. I want to stress: compelling. Even if you think the data is compelling, if said data would not convince the average person (too faulty, requires too many assumptions, whatever) it's a loser to use.
And if you're not saying that you should say "I'm anti equal rights", start correcting yourself before you say things like this:
"Homosexuals present a monolithic front when they demand equality for homosexuals."
This isn't me lecturing you. I screw up too. Often. But we have to admit our screwups, correct, and move on. We have to shift tactics when a given tactic is failing.
You’re the one who’s trying to shift the discussion from behavior to desire. That’s a diversion from the real issue.
It's relevant. I'm asking you how you handle sympathetic gays who want to deny their desires. You have no answer. That's a pretty glaring fault in your strategy and outlook, Steve. Also, I think, a Christian failure as well. This is something that has to be considered. Or are all gays, even the repentant, chaste ones, just screwed no matter what they do?
Akin screwed up, Mourdock didn’t. Mourdock was put in the impossible position where giving the right answer would cost him politically.
DeleteNo, he gave a dumb answer that, frankly, he should have seen coming a mile away. It wasn't very tricky - the "rape or incest" question is a standard one. His reply was a screwup by any measure. There were a variety of ways to answer it that would have gone off better. Hell, even saying "I can't answer that question in thirty seconds without leaving out vital details, so I won't even try." would have been better.
If voters refuse to vote for ethical candidates, then they are to blame.
Wonderful - you can blame them. Does that make you feel better? Wouldn't you rather be persuading them?
I haven't asked you to sacrifice a single principle here. I've suggested that tactics must change, that rhetoric must be honed, and that we can't let the LGBT groups define how we interact with gays as individuals.
Again: I think you were right in your OP. We do have to use blunter language. But we have to do more than that, and we can't keep letting the LGBT groups sandbag us. The previous post was about an activist who absolutely *loves* how most socons address this issue. How much more red of a flag do you need before you question your approach?
Crude
Delete"No, he gave a dumb answer..."
Here's a transcript of the question and the answer:
Moderator Dennis Fyerson, Indiana Debate Commission Board Member:
“The issue of abortion and contraception continue to divide the country. Questions received from voters reflected that divide. For example, one voter wanted to know your position on a woman’s right to abortion but not only that but to contraception and other reproductive health services and whether government should provide those services. Another asked if you believed that life begins at conception and in that person’s view what would you do to protect babies who could be aborted during your term in the Senate. So where do you stand on these issues?”
Richard Mourdock:
“You know, this is that issue that every candidate for federal or even state office faces.
“And I, too, certainly stand for life.
“I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view but I believe that life believes at conception.
“The only exception I have for – to have an abortion is in that case for the life of the mother.
“I just – I struggle with it myself for a long time but I came to realize that life is that gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen.”
**********************************************************
That's a theologically accurate statement of divine providence. There's no way of giving a truthful, but inoffensive answer to that question.
Crude:
Delete“Funny - I thought they were demanding exceptional treatment, and that gay marriage was not and could never be straight marriage. They were asking not for an equality, but an impossibility and some treatment that was anything but equal.”
No, what they say is that just as heterosexuals should have the right to marry the person they love, so should homosexuals.
And the demand for full inclusion isn’t limited to marriage–as you very well know.
“Our methods have been tried. They are failing miserably. But hey, if you feel like you were brave because you willfully used rhetoric that they knew would harm your cause, that's all that matters in the end - right?”
No, my methods have not been tried. Typically, conservative candidates simply state their position on social issues without giving detailed supporting arguments. I don’t remember any presidential, congressional, or gubernatorial campaign in which the GOP candidate took an hour or half hour to lay out the case for his position on a social issue.
I don’t remember any campaign in which a whole debate was devoted to a social issue. A debate in which a GOP candidate carefully marshaled the arguments.
So, no, the general public is not even heard the argument. That hasn’t been tried and failed. Rather, candidates have failed to try it.
“Great, another method that is destroying the fight against gay marriage and general acceptance of the gay lifestyle.”
What makes you think parents aren’t sensitive to that argument?
“Unless you have hard and compelling data that homosexuals are significantly likely to abuse young boys in their care…”
Unless you bury your head in the sand.
“Even if you think the data is compelling, if said data would not convince the average person…”
There is no average voter.
“It's relevant. I'm asking you how you handle sympathetic gays who want to deny their desires. You have no answer. That's a pretty glaring fault in your strategy and outlook, Steve. Also, I think, a Christian failure as well. This is something that has to be considered. Or are all gays, even the repentant, chaste ones, just screwed no matter what they do?”
That’s irrelevant to what social behaviors we should legally sanction.
“Wonderful - you can blame them. Does that make you feel better? Wouldn't you rather be persuading them?”
Sometimes the right answer is bound to alienate some voters.
Steve,
DeleteThat's a theologically accurate statement of divine providence. There's no way of giving a truthful, but inoffensive answer to that question.
What kind of 'theological accuracy' worth having is available in that space of time? And his line about a 'gift from God' and how God 'intended rape to happen' is both politically dumb and not necessary. If you're defending Mourdock because what he was saying matches up with your theological, Calvinist views, then I say you're making an incredible mistake, especially when it pushes you to being blind to a severe error.
Even if you agree with Mourdock's view, it does not make what he said anything but a bad move that should not have been made. There were better ways of answering that question. The fact that you're defending it just illustrates the problem.
No, what they say is that just as heterosexuals should have the right to marry the person they love, so should homosexuals.
And heterosexuals are limited straightaway, since they can't marry relatives, the underaged, etc. It's a mistake and inaccurate to frame this as 'denying them equal rights'. And yes, it does extend beyond that - and usually continues to illustrate my point on this particular front.
No, my methods have not been tried. Typically, conservative candidates simply state their position on social issues without giving detailed supporting arguments. I don’t remember any presidential, congressional, or gubernatorial campaign in which the GOP candidate took an hour or half hour to lay out the case for his position on a social issue.
Do you remember any candidate at all who has taken an hour or half hour to lay out the case for their position on any particular issue? It doesn't usually happen, because few people listen for five minutes, much less 30m-1h.
And this issue isn't limited to politicians. We've had socons giving arguments. We've had books written. We've had plenty of opportunity to give long, drawn out explanations of our views. The result has been a steady loss, because there remain serious problems in how the message is delivered.
Meanwhile, gay marriage advocates - somehow, without 30m/1h intellectual discussions leading the charge - have seen success. What have they done that we have not? What did we do that they do not?
What makes you think parents aren’t sensitive to that argument?
What makes you think they are?
Unless you bury your head in the sand.
Great, provide the data.
There is no average voter.
Yes, there is. More than that, if you want to get specific: if your 'data' and methods will turn off more people to your view than it will turn on, it's a mistake.
That’s irrelevant to what social behaviors we should legally sanction.
It is *completely* relevant, because this question comes up in the context of getting your message out. One of the biggest successes of the LGBT groups has been to portray socons as people who just plain dislike gays no matter how they act or what they do, because gays, period, are evil hellbound sinners. When you have no response to that, that hurts your cause - and a response to that entails giving an answer to the question I asked. If you think you can get away from that by hopelessly questioning relevancy, you're in for a surprise.
Sometimes the right answer is bound to alienate some voters.
There's nothing wrong with alienating some voters. Alienating ones who may listen to you, hear you out, or be persuaded if you'd adjust your approach and tone and message, without sacrificing principle, is insane. But some socons seem to think of it as a badge of honor. "I pissed off more people than ever today! Even ones who may have listened to me and agreed! Well, that's awesome, because clearly their offense means they're bad people or sinners or suck and I don't want them to change their minds anyway."
Crude
Delete“What kind of 'theological accuracy' worth having is available in that space of time? And his line about a 'gift from God' and how God 'intended rape to happen' is both politically dumb and not necessary.”
He didn’t say God intended rape to happen. He said God intended conception to happen. The divine gift of life. The inception of life. You’re twisting his words in the same malicious way liberals did.
“If you're defending Mourdock because what he was saying matches up with your theological, Calvinist views, then I say you're making an incredible mistake, especially when it pushes you to being blind to a severe error.”
I don’t construe his statement Calvinistically, for I have no reason to think he’s a Calvinist.
If, however, your Catholic theology doesn’t allow you to say that children conceived in rape still reflect God’s gift of life, then so much the worse for your theology.
“Even if you agree with Mourdock's view, it does not make what he said anything but a bad move that should not have been made. There were better ways of answering that question. The fact that you're defending it just illustrates the problem.”
The fact that you fold under pressure illustrates your own problem.
“And yes, it does extend beyond that - and usually continues to illustrate my point on this particular front.”
Not at all. They demand equal access to ordination, the Boy Scouts, the military, housing, employment, &c.
“Do you remember any candidate at all who has taken an hour or half hour to lay out the case for their position on any particular issue? It doesn't usually happen, because few people listen for five minutes, much less 30m-1h.”
Which confirms my point that the message isn’t getting out because the message isn’t even being made by public figures.
“And this issue isn't limited to politicians. We've had socons giving arguments. We've had books written. We've had plenty of opportunity to give long, drawn out explanations of our views.”
That is by socons for socons. That’s not a national or even a statewide platform.
“Great, provide the data.”
Do you assume this ostrich posture because you’re defending the presence of homosexuals in the priesthood, which then forces you to downplay the correlation between the sexual orientation of the priest and the gender of the victim? Is that your ulterior motive?
“When you have no response to that, that hurts your cause - and a response to that entails giving an answer to the question I asked.”
I avoid getting sidetracked on rabbit trails that have nothing to do with evaluating the legal status of homosexuals.
Finally, you’re consuming an inordinate amount of my time on your hobbyhorse. If you wish to retain the freedom to comment on future posts, the time is past due for you to take a break from this particular thread. If you want to have the last word, you can do so on your own blog.
How does Eph 5:11-13 apply to your concerns?
ReplyDeleteIt makes the point about the need to expose the deeds of darkness, even "unmentionable" deeds. Frank Thielman exegetes that passage well in his commentary.
Delete"Because both sides are framing this as a public policy issue. Identity politics. How to treat homosexuals as a group, en masse, as a matter of law."
ReplyDeleteThis is a good thing to keep in min, since many on the left operate with a collectivist framework. Everything is circles of oppression and class warfare. There's a reason why "check your priveledge" is such a catchphrase.
Even children know deep down that there's something wrong with Gay "marriages". Here's a child saying to his "father" "But you aren't my Mom!". I feel so sorry for the kid.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-watson/when-a-son-tells-his-gay-dad-you-are-not-my-mom_b_2521602.html
This is another example of what the gay community doesn't want to talk about too openly.
I'm sure the child would be so much better off with his mother seeing as she was the one that apparently did drugs while carrying him causing some of his disorders.
DeleteA child saying "But you aren't my mom" has nothing to do with gay marriage or gay relationships. It's quite common for adopted children to say such things to their adopted parents regardless of gay or straight.
Here's the homosexual position taken to its logical conclusion:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/05/ivy-league-campus-reportedly-hosts-workshop-encouraging-compassion-understanding-for-bestiality-incest/
Did anyone see the Douglas Wilson vs. Andrew Sullivan debate?
ReplyDeleteif so, thoughts, comments?