Gay Child Quiz

August 10, 2005 7:26 AM

Is My Child Becoming Homosexual? A helpful guide from the kind people at Focus on the Family. "Don’t wait until your daughter’s masculinized behavior or your son’s effeminate preferences get any worse!"
posted by adrober (309 comments total)

Coz its over fixation Barbie and interior design vs. obesity and vapid materiualism that are destroying this nation's youth!
posted by Mr Bluesky at 7:32 AM on August 10, 2005

Website of Organization of Idiots posts Idiocy. You were expecting erudition from this bunch perhaps?

Or did we post this so we can all work ourselves into a froth, and yell and rant, and pretend we're making a difference?
posted by jonmc at 7:32 AM on August 10, 2005

Guess who didn't spell check..sigh..reached for coffee
posted by Mr Bluesky at 7:33 AM on August 10, 2005

Oh God, I unthinkingly let my 5-year-old watch the whole season of Wickedly Perfect! Is there no hope?
posted by LarryC at 7:33 AM on August 10, 2005

But, hey! Help for your child's prehomosexual behavior is available!
posted by the_bone at 7:33 AM on August 10, 2005

I'm trying really hard to muster some sort of outrage but all I can do is stare at the screen in awe. Focus on the Family and their ilk have passed clean through self-parody and entered the realm of outright lunacy.

I especially like the part where they advise unconditional love before shipping your 'prehomosexual' child off to the happy funtime reeducation camp.
posted by cedar at 7:34 AM on August 10, 2005

Boy, you have to wonder what might make the teen feel “great waves of guilt accompanied by secret fears of divine retribution.” Surely not the parents, right?
posted by bitmage at 7:35 AM on August 10, 2005

Staggering to me that this:

A susceptibility to be bullied by other boys, who may tease them unmercifully and call them “queer,” “fag” and “gay.”

is supposed to be a sign that something is wrong with your child. Disgusting. As is usual, these guys side with the scum in picking on the weak.

(And just imagine what they'd make of long-hair Jesus, kissing Judas in the garden and talking in favor of the "meek." Toughen up, sport.)
posted by argybarg at 7:36 AM on August 10, 2005

sigh.
posted by glenwood at 7:41 AM on August 10, 2005

I like this part:

Remember that for many prehomosexual boys and girls, some of the characteristics may be more subtle:

* inability to bond with same-sex peers

Because gay men and women never bond or spend time with members of the same sex.
posted by jb at 7:42 AM on August 10, 2005

Literally at a loss for words. I'd like to mess up whoever wrote this list.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:42 AM on August 10, 2005

jonmc nailed it.

I read the FPP, instantly knew what I would see if I clicked the link (precognition is a wonderful talent!), and refused to give them the benefit of adding MY click to the "millions served" that they are going to advertise at some point.
Don't click the link!!!!
posted by HuronBob at 7:44 AM on August 10, 2005

(And just imagine what they'd make of long-hair Jesus, kissing Judas in the garden and talking in favor of the "meek." Toughen up, sport.)

This and John- the one whom Jesus "loved" resting on Jesus's breast, at the last supper.
posted by Jikido at 7:44 AM on August 10, 2005

is supposed to be a sign that something is wrong with your child. Disgusting. As is usual, these guys side with the scum in picking on the weak

For serious.
posted by Emperor Yamamoto's Eggs at 7:45 AM on August 10, 2005

This is so you can beat them to death, yes?
posted by Artw at 7:49 AM on August 10, 2005

This is so you can beat them to death, yes?

...In His Mercy.
posted by LordSludge at 7:51 AM on August 10, 2005

You know, it's easy for us to mock this and laugh at the loonie fundies with their nutty ideas. But these ideas and the group Focus on the Family are actively harmful. For many parents, loving well meaning parents, worrying that their child may be gay is a crisis. Not because they necessarily hate gay people, but because it's something new, strange, different. At that crisis moment parents reach out for some help. Hopefully they find something reasonable like PFLAG, but some of them are going to find this anti-gay message first. "Your child can be fixed". And some of them are going to clutch at that hope, pursue it.

It's the kids who suffer.
posted by Nelson at 7:54 AM on August 10, 2005

Do what now?
posted by kuperman at 7:55 AM on August 10, 2005

jonmc nailed it.

Only partially. Someone else needs to complain that this kind of elitism is why liberals keep losing elections.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:56 AM on August 10, 2005

Or did we post this so we can all work ourselves into a froth, and yell and rant, and pretend we're making a difference?
posted by jonmc at 7:32 AM PST on August 10

Well, this IS Metafilter, jon. Do we really need to ask that question?
posted by dios at 7:56 AM on August 10, 2005

Hmmmm. How many warning signs=gayitude?

In my wonder years I had 3 of the 7 signs (especially the one about getting picked on and called names). I guess I need to discuss this with my wife & kids...Thanks, Dr. Dobson!
posted by beelzbubba at 7:56 AM on August 10, 2005

"bouyant gaymotrons" - loliotrope!
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:58 AM on August 10, 2005

I must admit, I find the term "prehomosexual" to be accountably funny for some reason.
posted by jonmc at 7:58 AM on August 10, 2005

Won't this just result in more repressed homosexuality and Republicans being outed while in office? Okay, that works. It makes for amusing headlines.

I'm trying to muster outrage too but I think its been trumped by shock at how blatantly ugly and intolerant these people are. And how sadly misguided they are too.
posted by fenriq at 8:00 AM on August 10, 2005

"A tendency to cry easily,"... I sometimes wonder if people like Bush, Cheney et al. had been able to express their emotions as children (and be heard and nurtured!) they might have not turned into the heartless psychopaths, they are today.
posted by threehundredandsixty at 8:01 AM on August 10, 2005

Hmmm - have they not seen the film "But I'm a Cheerleader"?
posted by Chunder at 8:03 AM on August 10, 2005

Only partially. Someone else needs to complain that this kind of elitism is why liberals keep losing elections.

Okay, that was really funny.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:05 AM on August 10, 2005

Time to dispatch little Timmy the sissy to B.A.S.H.!
posted by MaxVonCretin at 8:06 AM on August 10, 2005

Oh, right. Sexual orientation as curable dysfunction...I think about a month ago we had an FPP on a kid who'd been sent to a reeducation camp to be "rescued" -- I wonder how that turned out.
posted by alumshubby at 8:07 AM on August 10, 2005

jonmc, I thought that was a funny term as well but have to say I prefer pre-ejaculate instead.
posted by fenriq at 8:07 AM on August 10, 2005

It actually made me think of "preschooler," or "pre-med."

"What's your major?"
"Pre-Homosexual."
"Lotta required courses for that, I hear"
posted by jonmc at 8:10 AM on August 10, 2005

My paradox sense is tingling. If a small child's behavior can mark him or her as a "prehomosexual," doesn't that go against the party line that claims homosexuality is a choice?
posted by aaronetc at 8:11 AM on August 10, 2005

"Call to make an appointment with a professional therapist who believes change is possible. Work patiently with that therapist in redirecting your child’s prehomosexual behaviors. To find a qualified therapist, contact one of these organizations:"


These people reeeeeeally go a long way defining their own reality.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 8:11 AM on August 10, 2005

XQUZYPHYR, my point still stands. FOF are a bunch of boneheaded bigots, but we could righteously rage about them all day and accomplish nothing except making myself feel better that I'm not like them. I prefer to a)examine my own behavior regarding this subject, and direct my verbiage on it towards people who can be reached.
posted by jonmc at 8:12 AM on August 10, 2005

Jesus wants you to know that it's never too late to change your major.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:12 AM on August 10, 2005

I think about a month ago we had an FPP on a kid who'd been sent to a reeducation camp to be "rescued" -- I wonder how that turned out.

Teenage blogger released from "ex-gay" camp

"Zach now says that "homosexuality is still a factor in my life—it's not who I am, it never has been." He also claims that Love in Action, the group that runs Refuge, has been misrepresented. But he stood behind his original posts, which questioned the program and its methods. Zach deleted the original Web log entries that received national media attention."

Advocate
posted by Jikido at 8:17 AM on August 10, 2005

I assume pre-bisexuals are double majors. Sheesh, whatta buncha grinds.
posted by jonmc at 8:17 AM on August 10, 2005

I am disgusted, but I appreciate the posting so I am aware of this attitude. I struggle with the attitude this website portrays being acceptable, somehow it comes across as a reasonable way of thinking and is a credit to their marketing and presentation, which is so so sad. Many people will be swayed by this drivel.

Personally I would like a digital-jihad on their electronic resources.
posted by fluffycreature at 8:18 AM on August 10, 2005

Many people will be swayed by this drivel.

Perhaps. But less and less all the time, due to increased visibility of gays both in the media and IRL. The old chant was "we're here, we're queer, get used to it!" and people are, more than ever before. That's not to say that we should lay back on these issues, just that I'm optimistic that we'll ultimately prevail.
posted by jonmc at 8:21 AM on August 10, 2005

Main Entry: ver·biage

Etymology: French, from Middle French verbier to chatter, from verbe speech, from Latin verbum word

1 : a profusion of words usually of little or obscure content
posted by gorgor_balabala at 8:26 AM on August 10, 2005

Jonmc, it may look that way from NYC, and I hope you are right. But here in flyover country this stuff is mainstream.
posted by LarryC at 8:28 AM on August 10, 2005

I'm lived other places, LarryC, and there's parts of NYC as provincial as any Oklahoma hamlet. And I've got realtives in rural New England and Southern Illinois. The worm is turning. Not as fast as I'd like, but it's happening.
posted by jonmc at 8:30 AM on August 10, 2005

Marchers: We're here! We're queer! Get used to it!
Lisa: You do this every year! We are used to it.
Marcher: Spoilsport!
-- "Jaws Wired Shut"
posted by grahamwell at 8:32 AM on August 10, 2005

aaronetc, good point. How can it be a choice if a child can exhibit symptoms? Not like they'd let a little thing like a logical paradox stop their crusade against Teh Gay. But its always nice to have a bazooka to fire back at them.
posted by fenriq at 8:33 AM on August 10, 2005

Hell this kind of thing is why I love freedom of speech. With a free exchange of ideas, assholes become self identifying. Self-labeled psychos are a wonderful benefit of our system.

I'm not at all worried about people being "swayed" by this. If you are worried about them winning supporters, vote pro-education spending. This type of obvious blather melts under the slightest critical overview.
posted by BeerGrin at 8:36 AM on August 10, 2005

Personally I would like a digital-jihad on their electronic resources

It's important to remember that our valued freedom of speech applies to everyone. DOS-attacks are for script-kiddies. Instead of blocking their speech, why not counter it with your own speech? Open dialog and debate is better than trying to shut someone up.
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 8:37 AM on August 10, 2005

Man, I gotta set myself up as a psychologist that turns kids straight. Then I can say "Hey, look, so long as you live in your parents' house, keep this on the down-low. They're fundamentalist lunatics and the rest of the world isn't like them. Bide your time, then go to college and suck cock like it's your job. In the meantime, I'll split the money your folks are paying me with you, so that you can save up to get the hell out of here."
At $100 a session, I guarantee results.
posted by klangklangston at 8:37 AM on August 10, 2005

So, essentially, they are going after smaller kids than Zach now. Aren't there laws against this sort of thing?

So if someone calls your kid 'faggot', it means your kid needs help! Clearly, nothing wrong with the bully. Bullies are okay, as, apparently, they are exclusively straight.

Reminds me of that guy in Florida that beat his toddler to death because the kid acted gay. Saved THAT one from being queer, he did!
posted by Goofyy at 8:42 AM on August 10, 2005

For what it's worth, I would have only exhibited the first two "warning signs." It seems like these are really signs that your son is going to be a wimp or stylish or transgender or an alienated poet or something -- not necessarily that he's going to want to have sex with or fall in love with men.
posted by digaman at 8:44 AM on August 10, 2005

"You got your mind right, Luke?"

"Yes, Boss. I got it right."

"Supposin' you was to backslide on us, Luke? Supposin' you was to backsass or try to run again..."

"No, Boss! I won't. I won't. I got my mind right. I got it right, Boss. Please don't hit me no more."
posted by caddis at 8:46 AM on August 10, 2005

What a gay website.
posted by wakko at 8:49 AM on August 10, 2005

Focus on the Family are so clueless... how is anyone going to identify a pre-homosexual with this list?

1. A strong feeling that they are “different” from other boys.

1. A strong feeling that they, you know, like other boys.

2. A tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy.

2. Having a strong interest in body building, liking a little too much roughhousing with other boys.

3. A persistent preference to play female roles in make-believe play.

3. A persistent preference for Broadway musicals... and gladiator films.

4. A strong preference to spend time in the company of girls and participate in their games and other pastimes.

4. A strong preference to spend time in the company of other boys. (A dead giveaway.)

5. A susceptibility to be bullied by other boys, who may tease them unmercifully and call them “queer,” “fag” and “gay.”

5. A susceptibility to bully other boys about how they dress.

6. A tendency to walk, talk, dress and even “think” effeminately.

6. A tendency to comb his hair, avoid denim, use hair mousse, and even "think" about his clothing.

7. A repeatedly stated desire to be — or insistence that he is — a girl.

7. A repeated desire to be - or insistence that he is - one of the village people. Or a cowboy.
posted by three blind mice at 8:50 AM on August 10, 2005

Oh, my god. I'm gay.

How will I break the news to my wife. All this time I thought I was just the class nerd, but no the feeling that I was "different," the tendency not to want to play "smear the queer" with the other boys, the games of house, the desire to be around girls, the other boys calling me "fag," the tendency to actually be sensitive to others' feelings, and all those times I said, "Jeez, how come the girls don't have to do [insert manual labor chore assigned by authority figure with double standard and supporting learned helplessness], I wish I was a friggin' girl."

It all makes sense now. How will I break the news to my wife?
posted by Pollomacho at 8:54 AM on August 10, 2005

"The truth is, Dad is more important than Mom. Mothers make boys. Fathers make men.… Girls can continue to grow in their identification with their mothers. On the other hand, a boy has an additional developmental task — to disidentify from his mother and identify with his father."

This saddens me.
posted by Otis at 8:58 AM on August 10, 2005

This saddens me.

Homo.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:01 AM on August 10, 2005

A repeatedly stated desire to be — or insistence that he is — a girl.

A repeated tendency to make things seem more important -- or to constantly be tripping on them -- than they are.
posted by nervousfritz at 9:03 AM on August 10, 2005

I love this thread...

...which is full of men...

...time for re-Nedification.
posted by thewittyname at 9:10 AM on August 10, 2005

On the side nav there's also this 'helpful' article: "How to Prevent Homosexuality"... oy! What they don't know they can't think about, yet somehow they think they know.

What a buncha dingleberries!!!
posted by mrhappysad at 9:16 AM on August 10, 2005

“Masculinity is an achievement.” In other words, “growing up straight isn’t something that happens. It requires good parenting. It requires societal support. And it takes time.”

Heh, heh, *sigh*.
posted by Floydd at 9:20 AM on August 10, 2005

I was at the store the other day and I overheard some women talking about a baby one of them had. The mother said loud enough so we could hear as we walked by "She better not be a tomboy!" and everyone nodded.

The way it was said, the way others agreed, it was almost as if she was saying "I hope to god she doesn't turn out gay."
posted by mathowie at 9:21 AM on August 10, 2005

> That's not to say that we should lay back on these issues.

Absolutely not. We should lay defiantly on our bellies,
pillows clenched firmly between our teeth and take it
like *real* men...
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:23 AM on August 10, 2005

jonmc...

"That's not to say that we should lay back on these issues,"

Uh, no, on second thought I am so not going to go there!
posted by Mike D at 9:25 AM on August 10, 2005

"The truth is, Dad is more important than Mom. Mothers make boys. Fathers make men.… Girls can continue to grow in their identification with their mothers. On the other hand, a boy has an additional developmental task — to disidentify from his mother and identify with his father."
My father divorced my mother when I was about ten. I must be turning into a homo as we speak!
posted by Citizen Premier at 9:26 AM on August 10, 2005

Question: Why is it wrong for someone to think that being homosexual is morally wrong?
posted by psychotic_venom at 9:26 AM on August 10, 2005

Question: Why is it wrong for someone to think that being homosexual is morally wrong?

The same reason it's wrong for someone to think that being born with a third nipple is morally wrong.
posted by glenwood at 9:28 AM on August 10, 2005

glenwood: what if it is your religious belief, and the morality defined by a given religion says that homosexuality is morally wrong?
posted by psychotic_venom at 9:31 AM on August 10, 2005

Question: Why is it wrong for someone to think that having blue eyes is morally wrong?
posted by spilon at 9:32 AM on August 10, 2005

2. The motto of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is: “Sex before eight or else it’s too late.” While most homosexual publications haven’t endorsed NAMBLA, they also haven’t condemned it.

Haha! Nice one. Can I get my choir robe back now?
posted by onanon at 9:35 AM on August 10, 2005

A: For the same reason that thinking a left-handed person is morally wrong.

Not that there's anything wrong with being a southpaw, mind you.

On preview: glenwood and spilon beat me to it

p_v: then it's up to each individual of that religion to question that belief and decide whether or not they agree.

However, that's not the issue that most of us are displaying righteous indignation over -- it's that this organization is spreading misinformation and claiming that homosexuality is a choice and that you can nip it in the bud if you'll just play more catch with your son. (As a friend of mine's father said to him when he came out.)
posted by papercake at 9:35 AM on August 10, 2005

heh, you could never afford me, Peter McDermott.
posted by jonmc at 9:36 AM on August 10, 2005

spilon: But let's say the religion (there is more than one) does teach homosexuality, murder, and lying are morally wrong, but that eye color, skin color, and social status are morality-neutral. Then what?
posted by psychotic_venom at 9:37 AM on August 10, 2005

Football is just around the corner. My oldest boy is now 13. Going to be watching him very carefully for the signs come noon these next Sundays. Will he sprawl out on the couch with one hand down his pants? Has he used the offseason to work on his vowel sounds when he belches? Will he (gasp) apologize when he farts? Worst case scenario: These therapy sessions aren't scheduled on Sundays, right?
posted by hal9k at 9:37 AM on August 10, 2005

psychotic_venom: Well, at some point, you're going to have to start critically considering your morality. God gave us free will for a reason; if you can see a real reason why homosexuality is morally wrong (and none of that "bad for society, we MUST reproduce" stuff), do tell. I've been to two churches for eight years and the best answer anyone gave was somewhere between "It's icky!" and "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"
posted by 235w103 at 9:37 AM on August 10, 2005

Remember psychotic_venom, religion is pretend.
posted by MotherTucker at 9:40 AM on August 10, 2005

The term 'prehomosexual' is some wonderful Orwellian doublespeak. I look forward to seeing 'preliberal' eventually.
posted by nixerman at 9:41 AM on August 10, 2005

Psychologist Robert Stoller said, “Masculinity is an achievement.” In other words, “growing up straight isn’t something that happens. It requires good parenting. It requires societal support. And it takes time.”

Methinks Robert Stoller is really struggling with something here...
posted by maryh at 9:42 AM on August 10, 2005

if you can see a real reason why homosexuality is morally wrong (and none of that "bad for society, we MUST reproduce" stuff), do tell

So you want a group of people to defend their beliefs to you, but you have already unilaterally decided that a number of their reasons are insufficient based on your own personal belief. Sounds like a good way to partake in a dialogue.
posted by dios at 9:43 AM on August 10, 2005

jonmc: Website of Organization of Idiots posts Idiocy... did we post this so we can all work ourselves into a froth, and yell and rant, and pretend we're making a difference?

I can see this point, yet on the other hand, I found the guide sort of illuminating. I didn't expect to agree with its suggestions, but I didn't expect it to be a ludicrously broad checklist for the Witchfinder General, either. It's crazier than I expected, and that's educational, in a way. Know thy enemy, and all that.
posted by Western Infidels at 9:46 AM on August 10, 2005

No, dios, if you apply common sense you can see the difference (A) Homosexuality is morally wrong. and (B) Homosexuality is morally wrong because ... The challenge still stands, dios. Provide some sort of justification for the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong.
posted by nixerman at 9:46 AM on August 10, 2005

The term 'prehomosexual' is some wonderful Orwellian doublespeak.
posted by nixerman at 9:41 AM PST on August 10

Orwell never used a term called "doublespeak." If he did, the term probably would have meant saying one thing, but meaning the opposite. So, what would the opposite of "prehomosexual" be, if that is what is meant through "doublespeak."

I don't mean to nitpick, but the bastardization, overuse, and lazy cliche-ing of Orwell runs counter to everything he stood for.
posted by dios at 9:47 AM on August 10, 2005

psychotic_venom: Perhaps, then, we should burn all the homos at the stake. I mean, the Church said to do that, too. Or maybe we should drown the gays, like the witches. Because the Church said that that was a good idea. Or maybe we should enslave them. The Church didn't have any problem with that for a good while.
posted by papercake at 9:47 AM on August 10, 2005

Oh noes!!11! If what I just read is correct, Jesus Is Teh Gay!

I'm going to have to go give god a fag-bashing now. Back in an hour!
posted by five fresh fish at 9:48 AM on August 10, 2005

So, what would the opposite of "prehomosexual" be, if that is what is meant through "doublespeak."

posthomosexual? No, wait that's a man who likes to have sex with male poles. No, wait....
posted by jonmc at 9:48 AM on August 10, 2005

psychotic_venom: What if, instead, your religion teaches that left-handedness is morally wrong? Would you accept that?
posted by LordSludge at 9:49 AM on August 10, 2005

dios, please. You've really got to try harder. The term 'Orwellian' is widely understood to apply to a mode of speaking and not just direct quotations from Orwell's writing.
posted by nixerman at 9:50 AM on August 10, 2005

I wonder why they don't have a section on teaching your children how not to turn into this.
posted by WaterSprite at 9:51 AM on August 10, 2005

papercake : so you're saying we all get to decide our own relative morality?
posted by psychotic_venom at 9:51 AM on August 10, 2005

spilon: It's okay to have blue eyes; it's not okay to use them. ;p
posted by exlotuseater at 9:51 AM on August 10, 2005

Hate is hate... hiding behind the Bible doesn't suddenly make it okay or beyond reproach.

You're just a racist, but replacing blacks with gays.
posted by BobFrapples at 9:52 AM on August 10, 2005

nixerman:

Your first comment to me appears to be a refutation of my first comment, but I don't see how it has to do at all with what I said to the guy with the Reporter name.

Your second comment to me didn't address my point regarding the misuse of "Orwellian" and "doublespeak." If you mean double speak, what the opposite of "pre-homosexual?"
posted by dios at 9:53 AM on August 10, 2005

dios, beliefs based on intolerance and ignorance aren't beliefs worth keeping. I know people who "hate" black people even though they've never met one in person. They hate from a position of ignorance, that's not a belief worth defending.

"It's icky" isn't a reason to condemn homosexuality. Its a tawdry little excuse to condemn those who don't live as others do. Without any real substantive argument against homosexuality there really isn't any need or room for debate.


jonmc, posthomosexual is a "successful" graduate of the sexual re-education camps. He thinks he likes girls, for now. Which, of course, gives rise to pre-post-prehomosexual warning signs, when the brainwashing isn't holding as well as it could and should. Or the fact that using guilty, repetition and threat of hell to suppress someone's natural sexual nature is bound to fail eventually.
posted by fenriq at 9:53 AM on August 10, 2005

fenriq said it better than I.
posted by BobFrapples at 9:54 AM on August 10, 2005

psychotic_venom: what if it is your religious belief, and the morality defined by a given religion says that homosexuality is morally wrong?

If your only justification for classifying something as moral or immoral is that some religion says it is so, where does that leave you? Anyone can make up a new religion, call its tenets "morality," and justify anything at all that way. That's not morality, that's just an elaborate disguise for moral relativism. It's an attitude that's demeaning to both morality and religion, frankly.
posted by Western Infidels at 9:55 AM on August 10, 2005

Ergh. Dios, the reason I don't accept that it's bad for society to have members who do not reproduce is simply because shit, man, have you seen India lately? China? The only place where I can see this being an issue is maybe Europe, where birth rates are declining- I'm not sure what the stats are here. And if someone is going to say, "God doesn't like homosexuality!", I want them to be able to explain why; also, saying that it goes against his divine plan is sort of a cop out, as who knows what that is.
So, seriously, what's the reason?
posted by 235w103 at 9:57 AM on August 10, 2005

...Am...am I the guy with the Reporter name?
posted by 235w103 at 9:58 AM on August 10, 2005

Well, Freud made a scientific argument about the definicency of homosexuality through his scientific and reasoning process. So, are you calling Freud ignorant?

Hell, you could say that Darwin made an argument against homosexuality, not a moral argument, but a scientific argument about how it is not optimal, and therefore inferior. I suppose Darwin would be ignorant, though.

My point is not to defend these people's beliefs, because I don't share them. My point is this: some people believe different from you and for different reasons. Disagree with them. Explain why your viewpoints are better. But don't argue that they are not allowed to hold a counterviewpoint based on your personal rejection of the acceptability of that viewpoint. And go back and look at what my original comment was directed towards before making the incorrect assumption that I am defending the beliefs of the people in the post.
posted by dios at 10:00 AM on August 10, 2005

dios:

Well, hmm. You said:

So you want a group of people to defend their beliefs to you, but you have already unilaterally decided that a number of their reasons are insufficient based on your own personal belief. Sounds like a good way to partake in a dialogue.

Well, this of course is complete nonsense. The fundies that wage war on homosexuality never defend their beliefs. They simply assert that homosexuality is wrong. They provide zero moral justification for such a position. So, no, it's not a matter of deciding that their reasons are insufficient it's more along the lines that they have no reasons. The entire complaint against homosexuality is completely based on a single Biblical interpretation. This is why people who say "homosexuality is wrong" aren't saying anything meaningful. Their definition of 'wrong' is just what happens to have made it into the bible.

As for the 'Orwellian doublespeak' nonsense, it's quite clear the word 'prehomosexual' is just propaganda. It implies that homosexuality is some sort of disease that can be prevented or manipulated out of kids. Nobody with any sort of common sense would hold this view. Much like 'partial-birth abortion' it's another attempt to conclude the argument before it's even begun.
posted by nixerman at 10:01 AM on August 10, 2005

Dios, about Orwell: I once tried to argue with a fellow on the myspace religion forums who kept insisting that the strongly religious should all be rounded up and killed, because they refuse to grow mentally. His moniker was "Thoughtcriminal." I found this pleasantly ironic.
posted by Citizen Premier at 10:01 AM on August 10, 2005

nixerman, a logic challenge: Explain why murder is wrong. I'm not anti-homosexual in any way, but I don't think "morality" is something concrete.
posted by Citizen Premier at 10:02 AM on August 10, 2005

...Am...am I the guy with the Reporter name?
posted by 235w103 at 9:58 AM PST on August 10

Yes, I was referring to you. I looked at your profile just now, and I see that I was wrong in the characterization of your name. I had wrongly assumed it was a citation to a case reporter. When I saw it, I saw 235 W. 103, and my mind immediately read that as a case site such as 345 S.W.2d 103 or 851 F. Supp.2d 111.

So yes, I was talking to you :)
posted by dios at 10:04 AM on August 10, 2005

Darwin made an argument against homosexuality? Sure, maybe if you completely misunderstand Darwin because he actually said no such thing. As for the argument that homosexuality is 'unnatural', it's a naturalistic fallacy and easily dismissed.

Freud is slightly more interesting but again, you're wrong. Freud does not condemn homosexuals, he does not believe it is morally wrong, and while he believes it to be a 'pathology' he does not believe it can be cured.

Any others?
posted by nixerman at 10:05 AM on August 10, 2005

Western Infidels: I see your point. And it's a good one. I would counter it with this: we're all born predisposed to lying and that doesn't mean we don't see it as wrong.

Sexuality is a little different, but in many ways--it's just not. We're still predisposed to doing things that are wrong--and just because we're predisposed doesn't make it "right".

I include myself in the set of people this applies to...
posted by psychotic_venom at 10:06 AM on August 10, 2005

psychotic_venom: But let's say the religion (there is more than one) does teach homosexuality, murder, and lying are morally wrong . . .

Uh, which of these things is not like the other?

psychotic_venom: so you're saying we all get to decide our own relative morality?

Not necessarily. But I would say that any faith that teaches intolerance towards something that is inborn is evil. Plenty of Christian Identity types claim that the Bible teaches them to disdain other races. That they base their racism on religion does not save them from the label "bigots."
posted by LarryC at 10:07 AM on August 10, 2005

Doublespeak - Deliberately ambiguous or evasive language; any language that pretends to communicate but actually does not.

Wasn't coined by Orwell (like Newspeak, Oldspeak, Duckspeak, and Doublethink were) but it also doesn't mean "the opposite of."

I think "Orwellian Newspeak" is what the poster meant to say.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:09 AM on August 10, 2005

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to engage in debate with those who will willingly send their children to what amount to re-education camps. My instincts tell me to fly into a bezerker rage and inflict +10 damage, but James Dobson has much higher charisma points.
I'm not arguing that these people should somehow be forced to change their minds; my entire point is, if you're objectively assessing your moral code, at some point, you're going to need to answer a few questions.
And, in any case, I've been firmly convinced that debate has never convinced anyone of anything. Jesus Christ, how long have you been on here, and how long has anyone else who is moderately politically talkative been on here, and how much have you been convinced by others arguments and how many have been convinced by yours?
posted by 235w103 at 10:10 AM on August 10, 2005

nixerman, you are just dismissing things out-of-hand. Which is my point. There are arguments that can be made, but you just dismiss them out of hand. One could easily point to Darwin's theory and make the sub-optimal argument. But you just dismiss it as not sufficient based on your personal beliefs and your understanding of Darwin.

Freud makes a very clear argument about the inferiority of homosexuality based on the Pleasure Principle and his knowledge of biology. It's the reason he saw it as a pathology. But again, you dismiss it out of hand.

So, to return to my point, you are demanding a defense of something, but you are dismissing any asserted defense out of hand and forestalling arguments based on your personal views. Not much of a way to have a dialogue.
posted by dios at 10:10 AM on August 10, 2005

Not all newspeak (which is obviously what nixerman meant) words meant their opposite conventional meaning. See "crimethink" or "bellyfeel." The point is that the language used controls the thoughts that are thinkable to a certain extent.

"prehomosexual" fits in just fine, as it is a neologism that intentionally connotes as implicit fact a lot of other ideas, like the pseudo-Freudian theories of sexual development, the idea that the process can be intentionally disrupted, and the idea that such interference is desirable. Now, these ideas are not directly implied by the word "prehomosexual," but are clearly part of the "frame" that the word evokes.

Incidentally, "doublethink" referred to holding two conflicting ideas simultaneously. (This is a necessary skill to have if you want to be both a conservative and Bush supporter.)
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:11 AM on August 10, 2005

Don't forget this gem: A number of them had traits that could be considered gifts: bright, precocious, social and relational, and artistically talented.
posted by amberglow at 10:13 AM on August 10, 2005

Pollomacho: "doublespeak" isn't a word coined by Orwell. It is a bastardization of two ideas used by Orwell: Doublethink and Newspeak. If it is a bastardization of those two thoughts, then it must mean what those thoughts forced together would mean: that a term is used to mean the opposite of what it says.
posted by dios at 10:13 AM on August 10, 2005

Hell, you could say that Darwin made an argument against homosexuality, not a moral argument, but a scientific argument about how it is not optimal, and therefore inferior. I suppose Darwin would be ignorant, though.

Dios, do you know anything about biology or Darwinian theory? I mean, at all? Do you know how ignorant you sound with the comment above?
posted by Rothko at 10:13 AM on August 10, 2005

My point is not to defend these people's beliefs, because I don't share them. My point is this: some people believe different from you and for different reasons. Disagree with them. Explain why your viewpoints are better.

Perhaps you could provide some suggestions about how you "explain" to a fundamentalist that his literal interpretations of a magical book taken entirely on faith are incorrect? They aren't even going to accept a debate framed in "rational" terms, so what is the point exactly?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:16 AM on August 10, 2005

I dunno... I was a big sissy in school and I generally disliked games where the object was to inflict pain. Yet I turned out hetero - despite what FoF would predict.

However - *if* I were gay, I would much rather think that I had the choice, not that it was something biology foisted on me. I'm much prefer to say, "Hell YES I chose this and if you don't like it, you can go screw" than, "Yeah, I'm gay because I was born with it..." I'd rather pick it up and wear it proudly than carry it like a burden.

Easy for me to say. I'm "the man".
posted by ImJustRick at 10:17 AM on August 10, 2005

Is My Child Gay, and If So, How Do I Get Him To Beat Up Our Neighbor?
posted by ericb at 10:17 AM on August 10, 2005

dios:

Um, no. The sub-optimal argument is not an "argument." Again, it is based on a natturalistic fallacy. You keep saying people are dismissing 'arguments' but arguments that are not philosophically sound are to be rejected. That's how the whole dialogue thing works.

And, no, you're still wrong about Freud. At best, Freud considered homosexuality more along the lines of a 'mutation' or 'perversion'. He did not think it was a pathology in the sense that we might cure it.

So, again, you're just spouting nonsense. Nobody here is dismissing anything here. When any of the fundies can provide a sound argument that homosexuality is morally wrong then we can in fact begin a dialogue.
posted by nixerman at 10:17 AM on August 10, 2005

Dios,
Jeesh - haven't seen Freud's scientific methodology waved about triumphantly in a good while. Are we talking Sigmund -"data" comes from freely associated thoughts - Freud?
And since it's taken me about 3 secs to manufacture a Darwinian defence of homosexuality as an optimal trait, surely it can't have taken you more than two?
posted by Jody Tresidder at 10:18 AM on August 10, 2005

Perhaps you could provide some suggestions about how you "explain" to a fundamentalist that his literal interpretations of a magical book taken entirely on faith are incorrect? They aren't even going to accept a debate framed in "rational" terms, so what is the point exactly?

You could tell him that his magic book also commands him to love thy neighbor, judge not lest ye be judged, remove the plank in one's eye..etc.

just sayin'...
posted by jonmc at 10:19 AM on August 10, 2005

From the above link...

"Dobson ... explains that if your boy is experiencing several of these signs, you must rush him off to seek professional help immediately. Dobson doesn't make it quite clear how professional help is going to change the child, since sexual orientation is, according to all reputable sources, immutable. But imagine the fun your four-year-old will have when he is rushed off to a psychiatrist because he plays with his sister, he's not as athletic as other boys, and the kid next door made fun of him.

Here's another idea: think back on your childhood. Were you ever a male between the ages of 4 and 11? Did you ever display any of these signs? Are you actually gay? Thanks to Dobson's Seven Steps, for the first time, you can tell.

After all, look at John Roberts. He wants to have a job where he dresses up in long robes. What could be gayer than that?"

posted by ericb at 10:19 AM on August 10, 2005

Darwin doesn't really make an argument for or against anything -- I mean, he makes an argument in favor of the truth of the origin of species by means of natural selection, but that's just that -- "this is how I think certain things came about", not how they should. It's not a theory to be a applied as right and wrong, merely as observation. It's not a theory you can apply and say what's right and wrong.

Science is nothing more than observation of what is out there. Homosexuality is right according to science -- people do, in fact, have intercourse with people of their own sex. Big freakin' deal.
posted by dagnyscott at 10:20 AM on August 10, 2005

Nothing is True; Everything is Permissible.
posted by exlotuseater at 10:21 AM on August 10, 2005

Former Co-Founder of "Love In Action" Condemns 'ex-gay' Work
posted by ericb at 10:22 AM on August 10, 2005

So you want a group of people to defend their beliefs to you, but you have already unilaterally decided that a number of their reasons are insufficient based on your own personal belief.

I'd be interested in a defense of why you think homosexuals should be discriminated against, dios. If you can provide a "it's bad for society" line of reasoning that makes any sense, I'll listen. And tell you what; for ease in response, you could defend the policy at issue, instead of just being forced into the position of "I hate gays." I define the basic question to be:

"Gay children should be identified early and psychologically treated to make them straight."
posted by norm at 10:23 AM on August 10, 2005

LarryC: We naturally lie, steal, mock, cheat, and generally act selfishly. I'd say each of those things are "inborn" but I'd also say each of them is wrong. There is also a difference in being born with blue eyes and having an in-born preference to only talk to blue-eyed people, wouldn't you agree?
posted by psychotic_venom at 10:24 AM on August 10, 2005

There are some interesting points here that are too far off the curriculum to be considered I guess.

1. It seems like these are really signs that your son is going to be a wimp or stylish or transgender or an alienated poet or something -- not necessarily that he's going to want to have sex with or fall in love with men.

This segues nicely to some interesting conversations had on the blue about whether homophobes (I hate the term, but it seems truer to form of late) hate the activities actually involved in homosexuality (ie: sex with same-sex partner) or the behaviours they think are associated -- ie: less-than-masculine behaviour from men, masculine behaviour from women. This from countless observations of "grudging acceptance" from homophobes of "those manly gays" who basically watch sports, hold many of the same views, and have the muscled, masculine body type, and the reverse, the denigration of feminine males regardless of actual sexual orientation. Is this entirely about sexual activity, or is it really about sexual typing? (note: I am not talking about the church but individual discomfort/fear/anger over homosexuals)

2. Not a particularly lucid argument happening with psychotic_venom. He asked a good question -- supposing that we start with no premises. Why is it wrong, believing what the chuch does, to condemn homosexuality? (my words, not his). Answers:
- well, I guess burning them should be alright, too (no -- he was talking about determination of morality, not the whole church canon; his question stands)
- would it be ok for the church to condemn blue eyes/left-handedness, etc, etc, etc. good answer provided that we take genetic determination as a given -- which was implied but not stated (and so not challenged).

Have I been completely asleep at the wheel? (admittedly, this is not my area of political activity, but I try to keep up) I remember genetic determination being argued against "choice", but though the whole of MeFi seems to agree that the former is true, is this the result of science or political convenience? Of course, the harder (but nobler, IMHO) argument to make would be that homosexuality might be a choice, but it would be no more wrong as any other sexual choice involving consenting adults -- but of course you don't have to face that at all if it isn't a choice because suddenly it isn't "curable". In the face of so much that humans want to deny genetic determination and scream "free will!" to the heavens, I find this interesting.

on preview: I see mention of Darwin. This would be an interesting offshoot if anyone would actually be willing to tackle the determination issue. Of course there has been pressure for homosexuals to marry and produce -- but this makes it seem like homophobia is the characteristic which keeps the "gay gene" alive. Across millions of years, one would think that even a slight genetic disinclination to reproduce would weed out that gene, no? Can we put aside politics for a minute to just discuss the issues?
posted by dreamsign at 10:27 AM on August 10, 2005

If you mean double speak, what the opposite of "pre-homosexual?"

The word "prehomosexual" implies that someone possesses some qualities that are likely to cause him or her to be homosexual. However, the people using this word also tell us that homosexuality is a choice. That is the doublespeak.

So you want a group of people to defend their beliefs to you, but you have already unilaterally decided that a number of their reasons are insufficient based on your own personal belief.

I have no personal belief in question. I simply have no evidence to indicate that homosexuality is immoral. I would think the burden of proof would fall upon those who say it is.

what if it is your religious belief, and the morality defined by a given religion says that homosexuality is morally wrong?

To me, that's roughly analogous to the Nuremberg Defense - "I was only following orders." I have a brain, and can reason, and should not accept what others tell me without subjecting their statements to reason. But then again, I'm an atheist who was brought up as Christian; I don't think that any religion withstands critical analysis sufficiently for me to accept it.

But let's say the religion (there is more than one) does teach homosexuality, murder, and lying are morally wrong, but that eye color, skin color, and social status are morality-neutral. Then what?

Then I would have to question the value judgments made by that religion. After all, without subscribing to any religious beliefs I can understand why murder and lying might be wrong. I can clearly perceive harm in those actions. I can't perceive any harm implicit to homosexuality.
posted by me & my monkey at 10:29 AM on August 10, 2005

psychotic_venom: we're all born predisposed to lying and that doesn't mean we don't see it as wrong.

I suspect that if you truly look at the world around you, you'll notice that the disapproval of something like lying isn't nearly as prevalent as you might think at first. Lies can make one rich, famous, powerful, and ultimately, respected. The world just wouldn't work that way if we really felt strongly about lies.

I think if you want to justify the belief that a behavior is immoral, you'll quickly find yourself wishing for a better-defined and more-solidly-grounded idea of what morality is, and where it comes from. That's a pretty tall order, frankly, something that generations of philosophers haven't settled.

I suspect that when you say we see lying as "wrong," you're projecting your own personal conviction onto the world around you. If your own convictions are all the moral foundation you need, well, good for you. Don't expect to convince anyone with that alone, though - even the most fundamental personal convictions differ, however shocking that may seem. Some see vengance as good; some think rape is a fair punishment; some find lies - some lies, anyway - as excusable or even admirable in the right circumstances.
posted by Western Infidels at 10:30 AM on August 10, 2005

jonmc: Too true--and excellent point, and they should be held to the highest of moral standards, including every dotted I and crossed T--because the moral standard of "righteousness" must be fullfilled by, and is the same for all people.

The only real righteousness is absolute perfection. Everything less than that is entirely unrighteous.
posted by psychotic_venom at 10:31 AM on August 10, 2005

Dios: Couple things. First off, Doublespeak refers to when a politician says one thing and means another. It's got nothing to do with Orwell, etymologically.
Second, Freud's theories on the causes of psychological disorders and his dream interpretations have been discredited by every reputable psychological association. So yes, Freud was ignorant. He's worth studying because he is the origin of psychoanalysis, not because his conclusions were particularly sound.
Third, the idea that all contentions must be discussed seriously is such a deeply flawed application of false equivalency that it lends itself to the absurd with alacrity. God said, if we go by the OT, that wearing two types of fabric was verboten, along with eating shellfish or mixing meat with milk. If you reject those views, you have to examine why you don't reject others from that same book (Leviticus). Or, if you're going from the NT, you have to admit that you're basing your argument on Paul, not on red-letter quotes.
Holding that every emotionally held argument cannot be dismissed out of hand even when it is contradicted by amble scientific, philosophical and ethical research is to relegate yourself to fending off every schizo's and California bird worshipper's own personal theological conception of the universe.
I dismiss these arguments the same way that I dismiss the positive assertion that God made the sun move backwards for one day: by demanding proof. Solid proof, not some "This translation of this book I read says something about it which I have interpreted to mean 'homos are bad.'"
posted by klangklangston at 10:31 AM on August 10, 2005

If gays can change then so can straights, which given our overcrowded and overpolluted world seems a moral necessity. Maybe we should start an organization to help people Queer themselves and/or their children (if they were already unwise enough to have children). The Earth could benefit from father+son flower-arranging classes, for example.
posted by davy at 10:31 AM on August 10, 2005

Ok. Obviously many of you are completely missing my point which I tried to make plain.

There is a difference between (1) disagreeing on a topic and (2) rejection of any possibility of a contravening view. The first is completely appropriate and acceptable. The second is contemptible. So, one can say "I disagree that there is anything wrong with homosexuality." Or, one can say, "I disagree with that interpretation of Freud." Or anything about disagreeing.

But what is wrong to do is to reject the other side's position as being without a basis and using one's own views as a the basis for that rejection. One cannot say "there is no moral argument for that position because anything you say is wrong because your morals are clearly messed up." One cannot say "there is no argument that one can make using Darwin/Freud/biology based on my understanding of those things." You can disagree, but don't reject the basis for disagreement. Because all that is accomplish is that dialogue is forestalled. Then you become two ships passing in the night. If you do behave that way, then you are engaging in the very dogmatism and sophistry you arguing against.

Now try to understand that point in connection to what I was originally referring to:

if you can see a real reason why homosexuality is morally wrong (and none of that "bad for society, we MUST reproduce" stuff), do tell
posted by dios at 10:33 AM on August 10, 2005

In shorter words: I'm not making the argument. What I am saying is, if you want to have the argument, don't forestall it by saying that the other side can't put forth any basis for their position.
posted by dios at 10:34 AM on August 10, 2005

Pollomacho: "doublespeak" isn't a word coined by Orwell.

No shit, I guess I shouldn't have written:

Wasn't coined by Orwell (like Newspeak, Oldspeak, Duckspeak, and Doublethink were)

Apparently in DioSpeak wasn't means something other than was not.

Again, Doublespeak was not coined by Orwell, however it has an established dictionary meaning. That established dictionary meaning, though the word was not one written or spoken about by George Orwell, the author, does not equate to "opposite."
posted by Pollomacho at 10:37 AM on August 10, 2005

Dios: Fine, I'll accept that there are arguments that you can make, if you accept that there are no VALID arguments.
posted by klangklangston at 10:37 AM on August 10, 2005

ImJustRick writes ""However - *if* I were gay, I would much rather think that I had the choice, not that it was something biology foisted on me. I'm much prefer to say, 'Hell YES I chose this and if you don't like it, you can go screw' than, 'Yeah, I'm gay because I was born with it...' I'd rather pick it up and wear it proudly than carry it like a burden."

I'm sure you would. Except that:

1) It's not a choice. It's possible that there are additional environmental, as opposed to purely genetic, influences, but who knows.

2) The very idea of it being a choice is what allows these alleged people to spew their vile hatred. If it's a choice, it can therefore be 'cured' (reams of scientific data to the contrary notwithstanding).

The idea of gay pride is a reaction to the foisting of shame by segments of the straight community. Frankly, I long for the day when gay pride doesn't exist, because it doesn't need to anymore. Reactionary politics can only go so far.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:38 AM on August 10, 2005

- what is/determines morality? also a good question -- but I somehow doubt that it will be taken to its logical conclusions rather than the most expedient stop

- if we can change gay-ness, then we can change the straights, too. good point. this seems to be what the church believes -- hence the fear.

- what about lying, etc -- other perhaps determined characteristics that are condemned as morally wrong? well at least some people are taking cryptic's question seriously. seems to me that the church condemns a hole host (no pun intended) of problems that they see as innate. face it: their worldview of humanity is a struggle against temptation -- to be lazy, greedy, etc, etc, etc. the whole seven deadly sins stuff.
posted by dreamsign at 10:39 AM on August 10, 2005

2. He asked a good question -- supposing that we start with no premises. Why is it wrong, believing what the chuch does, to condemn homosexuality? (my words, not his). Answers:
- well, I guess burning them should be alright, too (no -- he was talking about determination of morality, not the whole church canon; his question stands)

Well, my reponse was to the fact that he is using Religion as the basis for his premise -- pointing out that Religion has posited and approved of all kinds of behavior that, on sober reflection, might not be considered all that moral, and so might be worth questioning and reconsidering.

But if you want to actually take it down to dealing with it from "no premises" then why exactly would homosexuality be immoral? How does it damage society and the continuation of the human race? This question has been asked at least once in this thread and there has been no answer, let alone a reasonable answer given.
posted by papercake at 10:40 AM on August 10, 2005

dios, nobody is doing that. You're tilting at windmills. I'm perfectly willing to entertain a moral argument against homosexuality. I'd be quite interested in such an argument and so would many others. But neither you, nor anybody else in this thread, have provided even a remotely rigirous argument against homosexuality.
posted by nixerman at 10:42 AM on August 10, 2005

Dirtynumb: We've gone through this before.
Point 1) There are plenty of cultures where being gay was socially acceptable (even mandated), and where the normative behavior was predominantly homosexual. Do they simply have more gay genes? Doubtful.
Point 2) Arguing that because you disagree with the people who espouse a theory, the theory must be wrong is totally unscientific and rhetorically bankrupt. Argue from facts, not from what people might do with those facts.
posted by klangklangston at 10:42 AM on August 10, 2005

dirtynumbangelboy -- The very idea of it being a choice is what allows these alleged people to spew their vile hatred.

1. The end result doesn't determine the reality one way or the other.

2. NO, it doesn't. Suppose someone is born a psychotic murderer, a pedophile, or anything else which we want to morally condemn. Whoops - we can't? - because he/she was born that way?

3. Let's see the "reams" of data. Again, maybe I just missed it, but I thought that this was still a live issue. I won't accept that it's been determined because the issue makes the argument harder. It's hard for you to argue that sexual orientation is morally neutral if it's a choice?! Then your arguing skills need WORK. Leave reality alone.
posted by dreamsign at 10:43 AM on August 10, 2005

davy, that would be pretty funny. Especially if the Get Queer crowd started showing up at the same events as the Get Straight crowd. Until the Get Straight folks started shooting people because they're unable to articulate any argument against homosexuality that isn't based on prejudice.

And klangklangston, you made some excellent points in your comment above.

BobFrapples, thanks!
posted by fenriq at 10:44 AM on August 10, 2005

dios: ...you could say that Darwin made an argument against homosexuality... it is not optimal, and therefore inferior. I suppose Darwin would be ignorant, though.

If one were to appeal to the optimization of natural selection, the obvious conclusion would be that homosexuality, observed throughout the mammalian kingdom and known in humans for all of recorded history, is actually beneficial to the species in some way. Or perhaps that it's a side effect of some other adaptation, the advantages of which outweigh any drawbacks.
posted by Western Infidels at 10:45 AM on August 10, 2005

this is fucking sick; i whistle the tune of Brazil when i read shit like this -- or when im at the grocery store and I hear about some god bless our troops promotion
posted by Satapher at 10:45 AM on August 10, 2005

Dreamsign,
No, we can't discuss this and get very far because I suspect, though I'd be happy to be corrected, many of us will start getting bored at the "fitness" of an allele (alternative form of a gene) increasing in proportion to its lowered frequency in the population thingmy, and generally getting lost in apologetic quote marks in order to clarify what is perfectly obvious to some, and a painful classroom lecture with way too-much-information to others.

In any case, I'm becoming twitchy about psychotic_venom. Detecting a whiff of troll?
posted by Jody Tresidder at 10:46 AM on August 10, 2005

(off topic)

It's supposed to be psychic venom, ya nerd.


(/off topic)
posted by norm at 10:46 AM on August 10, 2005

I think jonmc is correct. The best way to argue morality to a fundamentalist is to point out how narrowly they have interpreted the Lord's teachings. How the actions they propose may be in contradiction to other parts of the teachings. They have chosen to define their morality based upon the teachings of the Bible, but the Bible was written by many different writers with differing subjects and differing emphasis on these subjects, many in conflict with one another. If your aim is to persuade, use the most powerful persuasion the fundamentalist will accept, the Bible itself.
posted by caddis at 10:52 AM on August 10, 2005

Having a homosexual/homosexuals in a family/community is beneficial to the group because homosexuals are another childless member of the group that can help with child rearing. Gayness certainly does not "rub off" on children; my mother teaches in a university English department where several of the other professors are gay males, and I certainly didn't feel malignant gay particles spreading through my body every time I went to hang out at the university after school as a child. The funny thing is, I was never told anyone was gay, and when I was old enough to realize or care about the distinction, the guy I pegged for gay because he was extremely effeminate turned out to be a raging heterosexual; he's married and has been impregnating his wife about once every 1.5 years for the past six years. He was also a state wrestling champion in high school. The guys who actually were gay acted more like your archetypical man's man, and there was none of that butch-bitch pairing bullshit in the gay relationships going on in the department. I've met effeminate gay people as well, but you just can't tell that easily. Genetics are not my field, but are we not more concerned with genes rather than individuals at this point? If one individual in a group sharing a gene or set of genes does not reproduce but helps the group to reproduce, then that individual is still a beneficial part of the reproductive process. So, that seems to settle the biological argument. Anyone thinking that homosexuals can be considered immoral because they supposedly damage society should make some homosexual friends. No harm is being done.
posted by Derive the Hamiltonian of... at 10:52 AM on August 10, 2005

You can disagree, but don't reject the basis for disagreement. Because all that is accomplish is that dialogue is forestalled.

Not necessarily. One can make an argument that attempting to marginalize them (in whatever ways will work) may produce a better result overall than patiently engaging them in debate for forever.

Let's say that by debating and arguing and playing nice, it only takes 50 years for full gay rights to be a reality. How many people will be abused and discriminated against and and assaulted and murdered in the meantime? How many victims of that virulently anti-gay culture are acceptable to ensure that we don't discount their views?

In that sense, I think there's a real parallel here to the civil rights movement. Instead of forced integration and civil rights laws, we could have decided to accept another few decades of legal discrimination and lynchings while we patiently waited for the racists to come around.

Fuck that. I'd rather have a culture war.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:53 AM on August 10, 2005

caddis, that won't go very far. Fundamentalists are fundamentalist because they believe the Bible is the literal word of God and is basically infallible. The idea that these people can be reasoned with is simply not realistic.
posted by nixerman at 10:54 AM on August 10, 2005

Jody Tresidder,

That's too bad as many posters here have made it *the* issue, instead of a few (papercake, grudgingly) willing to make the braver argument that homosexuality, choice or no choice, is morally neutral.

But those who want to argue "no choice" should do it at their peril, since evidence to the contrary will suddenly send them down a road they don't want to go. Besides, it's a fool who argues that an act isn't wrong because it was determined. But I suspect that the lobby won't let this one go because it's just too valuable in the fight against the church, whether the argument itself bears any resemblance to reality or not. And of course the church buys into it, insisting that "natural" = right and "unnatural" = wrong, but that's a weakness of argument on their side.
posted by dreamsign at 10:55 AM on August 10, 2005

Fuck that. I'd rather have a culture war.

The culture war was called on account of rain.

Seriously, though, how could we have a "culture war." It's not like there's only two "cultures," in this country. There's hundreds, if not more different cultures in this nation, and most of us have a foot in at least a few of them. So what we'd get is cultural Balkanization, ultimately.
posted by jonmc at 10:57 AM on August 10, 2005

In fact, caddis, you shouldn't assume that these people are sincere. They're not. Guides like this are more like propaganda than any deliberate attempt to help children.
posted by nixerman at 10:57 AM on August 10, 2005

nixerman -- there are more than a few fundies in this thread.

Armitage -- you're not interested in swaying the doubtful, conservative (and fearful) masses who are as yet undecided. Can't you join the other side? You'd do less damage there.
posted by dreamsign at 10:57 AM on August 10, 2005

Fundamentalists are fundamentalist because they believe the Bible is the literal word of God and is basically infallible. The idea that these people can be reasoned with is simply not realistic.

replace the word "fundamentalist" with "terrorist," in that sentence and you sound like George Bush. I say this not to bust your balls, but to make a point. We often implore eachother to look for "root causes," to terrorists (who are usually fundamentalists as well) behavior, why not with fundamentalists here at home. Things don't develop in vacuums.
posted by jonmc at 10:59 AM on August 10, 2005

The compulsion to legislate morality is the highest form of social deviance.
posted by basicchannel at 11:00 AM on August 10, 2005

there are more than a few fundies in this thread.

like who?
posted by jonmc at 11:00 AM on August 10, 2005

235w103: if you can see a real reason why homosexuality is morally wrong (and none of that "bad for society, we MUST reproduce" stuff), do tell.

dios: ...you are dismissing any asserted defense out of hand and forestalling arguments...

You're reading too much into this. 235w103's was asking for something novel, something supportable, rather than the tired, emotionally-based nonsense we've all heard, discussed, and seen demolished a million times over.

That's not the same as "dismissing any defense." It's not even close.
posted by Western Infidels at 11:01 AM on August 10, 2005

Armitage -- you're not interested in swaying the doubtful, conservative (and fearful) masses who are as yet undecided.

Doubtful, conservative masses can hopefully be swayed by what's going on in places like Massachusetts right now.

I'm not interested in swaying fundamentalists. I'm suggesting that we stop wrestling that particular greased pig.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:02 AM on August 10, 2005

like who?

not as in the above definition of literal truth in the Bible (a limited definition -- other religions don't have fundies? there are no secularist fundies?)

Psychotic venom posted an interesting question. People batted it down instead of dealing with it as an honest debate. Dios called it out and was shut down... for being Dios. It's sad.

But again, perhaps my knowledge is out of date and the whole genetic determination issue has been settled. However, even if we are only talking about genetic predisposition, the church would have something to hang their hat on. "Cancer has genetic precursors. So do many other disorders. Do we abandon attempts to change the outcome through environment? No!" Let's face it -- we never talk about "genetic determination of anything except eye colour, hair colour, etc. So that makes this a standout, and that makes Psychotic_Venom's question interesting. But no one wants to dig that deep.

And no one wants to be brave enough to argue the morality of sexual conduct head on. Again, it's sad.
posted by dreamsign at 11:06 AM on August 10, 2005

Also, we're getting off the topic somewhat in regards to the post. This list of "things to look out for" is horribly misguided and potentially harmful. According to this list I was a pre-homo. Had my parents subscribed to this belief system, I can't imagine the possible manipulation and abuse that could have been brought down on me.

The fear evidenced by this webpage and by Focus on Family (Fear of Fags?) is noxious and blinding. Their blinkered view of the world, imho, is much more damaging to a greater number of lives than the imagined disease version of homosexuality (transmitted by wussy dads and overbearing mothers) they've created.
posted by papercake at 11:07 AM on August 10, 2005

not as in the above definition of literal truth in the Bible (a limited definition -- other religions don't have fundies? there are no secularist fundies?)

Gotcha. And I've known tons of political fundamentalists who are as tiresome and blinkered as their religious counterparts, so carry on.
posted by jonmc at 11:10 AM on August 10, 2005

*in complete agreement with everything papercake just said*

And I've known tons of political fundamentalists who are as tiresome and blinkered as their religious counterparts

If you've spent time here, no doubt.
posted by dreamsign at 11:13 AM on August 10, 2005

dreamsign, this is an argument between people who believe homosexuality is morally wrong and others who just don't care. In a liberal society, for such a question, the burden of proof does not rest on those who are morally neutral to the act, it rests on those who wish to condemn the act. Psychotic venom's question is silly because, as several people pointed out, his original question:

Question: Why is it wrong for someone to think that being homosexual is morally wrong?

can be rewritten as:

Question: Why is it wrong for someone to think that pissing sitting down is morally wrong?

Substitute 'being homosexual' for any morally neutral act. psychotic venom first has to explain why being homosexual is not a morally neutral act and then we can decide what to do about it.

As for dios he was just spouting crap. When pressed, he somehow figured repetition might save him, but what he seems to be saying--that we must discuss all arguments against homosexuality no matter how absurd or unsound--is ridiculous.
posted by nixerman at 11:17 AM on August 10, 2005

I'm with jonmc regarding the use of scripture to hold the hater fundies accountable for their actions. Jesus makes it very plain for them.
posted by nofundy at 11:21 AM on August 10, 2005

psychotic_venom: We naturally lie, steal, mock, cheat, and generally act selfishly. I'd say each of those things are "inborn" but I'd also say each of them is wrong.

I'm still not buying the analogy. Impulses to lie, cheat, etc. are universal, but a sexual preference for the same sex is not.
Are you saying we all have homosexual impulses, but some of us resist them?

There is a strain of fundamentalist thought along these lines: "We all have homosexual desires, the righteous resist them." But we do not all have homosexual desires. Homosexuals have homosexual desires.

I really hate arguments that use facile psychology to reduce an opponents opinions to some kind of mental illness. And yet, there is something about the anti-gay activists that sets off my gaydar every time. There was a front page post some time ago (which I can't seem to locate) that linked to an article by a fundamentalist pastor who said that the great danger of accepting homosexuality as normal is that gay sex is so hot, no one would be straight anymore. In his case, at least, his politics are a desperate attempt to deny his own homosexuality.
posted by LarryC at 11:21 AM on August 10, 2005

nixerman,

No. The question was not "is the church's position that homosexuality is morally wrong" incorrect, but rather "is the church's position that homosexuality is morally wrong a valid position". That sequed into questions of what is morality.

I think you are dead on course about how Psychotic's question should have been answered. Pity it wasn't.

Sorry, but I just hate it when people on my side blather when perfectly good answers await. If this is how middle-America is met when they express their fears, no wonder they keep them safely locked away, impervious to argument.

The genetic "determination" argument is a red herring. The church couldn't have done better if it planted the idea themselves, which they practically did with their whole "natural" = good and "unnatural" = bad concept (which also shoots them in the foot when actual evidence comes in)

Determined or not, homosexuality is morally neutral. You go down the path of "determination" at your own peril. Unfortunately, you drag the rest of us along.
posted by dreamsign at 11:24 AM on August 10, 2005

LarryC -- it seems like there are only anti-gay zealots and pro-gay zealots arguing, like just about every other sphere of debate. (not to paint with too broadly a brush -- there have been a few in here willing to pick up the issues, but the signal to noise ratio is atrocious)
posted by dreamsign at 11:27 AM on August 10, 2005

"And no one wants to be brave enough to argue the morality of sexual conduct head on. "

"Morality" is an abused term meaning whatever the speaker means it to mean. It is hard to debate subjectivity. In My mind sexual morality starts and ends at there being knowledgeable consensual adults. Other people, disagree and I think they are nuts, thats the argument as I see it, now why are we arguing?

I think why people have a hard time with this aspect of social engineering in regards to sexual predisposition is the level of coercion coupled with the idea that non-straight sexual orientation is pathological. Cancer is demonstrably harmful, gay behavior is no more or less harmful them non-gay behavior from a non religious POV.

Why should parents send their children to a correctional institution if they fear the kid is gay? because they have a view that being gay is bad. Why would it be bad? Is there a reasonable non-religious argument why being gay is bad?
posted by edgeways at 11:28 AM on August 10, 2005

I'm with jonmc regarding the use of scripture to hold the hater fundies accountable for their actions. Jesus makes it very plain for them.

Have you ever read Ferocious Romance by Donna Minkowitz? You might find it interesting.
posted by jonmc at 11:29 AM on August 10, 2005

pro-gay zealots

"pro-Negro zealots"
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:29 AM on August 10, 2005

Why should parents send their children to a correctional institution if they fear the kid is gay? because they have a view that being gay is bad. Why would it be bad? Is there a reasonable non-religious argument why being gay is bad?

But isn't the real schism that the morality argument is being put forth by people who are fine with saying "my religion says homosexuality is immoral, therefore it IS -- end of discussion"? You can argue with such a person until you're blue in the face and it won't matter, as long as they have their Book to wave as "proof."

(Which goes a ways to saying that jonmc has a point in fighting Brimstone with Brimstone, if you know what I mean.)
posted by papercake at 11:33 AM on August 10, 2005

Wait - how is 'the roughhousing that other boys enjoy' LESS gay than NOT participating? Hot, sweaty boys rolling around on the ground?
posted by ORthey at 11:36 AM on August 10, 2005

Western Infidels, P-V, Is it really so complicated? Isn't "wrong" simply a voluntary act that intends harm? Lying, cheating, stealing, killing, harms someone, or intends to. Having sex with any consenting adult doesn't involve a victim, (insert s&m joke here).
posted by tula at 11:37 AM on August 10, 2005