Slog
News & ArtsThursday, March 8, 2012
LGBTQITSLFA Homosexuality Isn't Unnatural
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 8:16 AM
In an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan on Sunday, former Growing Pains star Kirk Cameron called homosexuality “unnatural,” and a behavior that is “ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” We’ve heard that many species of nonhuman animals engage in gay sex, which calls into question the first part of Cameron’s statement. But what about the practice of shunning gays—can animals be homophobic too? Not as far as we know. Homosexual behavior has been documented in hundreds of animal species, but the same does not hold for gay-bashing.
And guess what? Kirk Cameron—a man who believes that gay people are literally destroying our civilization—has gay friends! No one has met his gay friends, of course, and no reporter has asked Kirk to produce the names and phone numbers of his gay friends. That seems like an obvious followup question whether we're talking about the gay friends of Kirk Cameron (who are alleged to "support him") or the gay friends of Elizabeth Santorum (who are alleged to support her father).
Another obvious followup question: "You say you have gay friends, Kirk, and you claim that they support you. But why do you have gay friends?" If Kirk actually believes what he says about gay people—that we're Godzillas with gym memberships and good hair bent on the destruction of our civilization—why would he want to be friends with us? With any of us? I wouldn't be friends with someone I thought was bent on destroying our civilization. I'm fond of our civilization. I mean, if aliens arrived from another world and methodically laid waste to our cities, one after another, destroying our civilization one city at a time, I wouldn't hang out with those guys between attacks no matter how pleasant their company might be.
So, Kirk, your gay friends are destroying civilization. So why are they your friends?
1
But Kirk Cameron has proof that their is a God, and that he's right about homos being bad bad bad. The banana...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_…
2
I'm waiting for the sex tape with Kirk getting gang banged by about 5 guys sometime in the next few months.
4
I've always been confused by the "but I have X type friends" thing, don't people know how stupid that sounds?
oh never mind
oh never mind
5
Look after his Left Behind movies (where the evil satan brings peace to the middle east and end world hunger) anything he says is sorta... pointless?
Perhaps someone should point out that one of the "big issues" with god is lying or if he do have gay friends - that there is according to christian dogma a rather special place in hell for traitors.
Perhaps someone should point out that one of the "big issues" with god is lying or if he do have gay friends - that there is according to christian dogma a rather special place in hell for traitors.
6
You should challenge him to an interview, Dan.
If you do, please let it be a video interview, and when he gets up out of his chair, make sure you give him a nice slap on the ass.
If you do, please let it be a video interview, and when he gets up out of his chair, make sure you give him a nice slap on the ass.
8
Dude, are you really engaging in a debate with Kirk Cameron? For chrissakes, this guy is the laughing stock of a generation. You don't even need to pay attention to him just because CNN did.
9
Yeah, I really don't get how journalists became this stupid and not ask such basic questions, not just with this but with everything.
Are journalistic schools really that bad? Do they not teach logic and critical thinking anymore?
Are journalistic schools really that bad? Do they not teach logic and critical thinking anymore?
10
I think God is the most unnatural thing to happen to humanity.
And, I have Christian friends, so I can say that.
And, I have Christian friends, so I can say that.
11
I have nothing against refuting the ridiculous lie that homosexuality is "unnatural" and bashing homophobia is always nice, but I have to object to the appeal to nature fallacy here. Whether or not homophobia is "natural" is no more to the point than whether or not homosexuality is "natural". What matters is whether they are harmful. Clearly, homosexuality is not and homophobia is. This should be our standard.
I get how educating people about the natural, biological origins of homosexuality is helpful towards greater acceptance, since most of us have a deeply ingrained sense of "natural = OK", but we don't need to take recourse to this fallacy ourselves. Homosexuality is fine, homophobes are either ignorant, evil, self-hating or some combination thereof. That's all we need.
I get how educating people about the natural, biological origins of homosexuality is helpful towards greater acceptance, since most of us have a deeply ingrained sense of "natural = OK", but we don't need to take recourse to this fallacy ourselves. Homosexuality is fine, homophobes are either ignorant, evil, self-hating or some combination thereof. That's all we need.
12
Prediction: Cameron's (and Santorum's) "gay friends" are, in fact, "ex-gay" friends.
Or is that assuming too much internal consistency from these folks?
Or is that assuming too much internal consistency from these folks?
13
oh no.
Animals don't gay marry.
Does that mean Danny can't either?
*sob!*
butt,
then,
there is still incest, gang rape, cannibalism and poo flinging-
all Animal Kingdom approved.....
Animals don't gay marry.
Does that mean Danny can't either?
*sob!*
butt,
then,
there is still incest, gang rape, cannibalism and poo flinging-
all Animal Kingdom approved.....
14
There's good reason I found this to be hilarious and totally believable: http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/670…
16
Cameron believes that Satan is the god of this fallen world, and that the saved will put off this 'natural' body in favour of the perfect bodies God will give them.
That is to say, saying that animals do something really shouldn't cut any ice with him---when he says 'unnatural' I believe he means 'against Natural Law' which has nothing much to do with nature-as-it-is, and much more to do with Aquinas (funny, for a Protestant, but there you go).
That is to say, saying that animals do something really shouldn't cut any ice with him---when he says 'unnatural' I believe he means 'against Natural Law' which has nothing much to do with nature-as-it-is, and much more to do with Aquinas (funny, for a Protestant, but there you go).
17
Ah...Kirk Cameron (who?) who has no career anymore really - other than those sad, sad Left Behind films - knows now how to get a mention on TV and in the press!
Wow...I'm sure his, um, transformation into uber-Christian came as a reaction to his Hollywood childhood. You know, snorting blow off a hookers belly at 14, et al. And Alan Thicke...his TV dad...according to real son, Robin, left no Miss Universe contestant intact - hymenally speaking. But please, Mr. Kirk...keep your now not-so-new transformation and inner rejoicing to yourself and to those who can appreciate it - namely, a bitter, old Pat Robertson and The 700 Club and that mauve-headed thing on Praise the Lord. Onward! Onward, Christian soldiers!
Wow...I'm sure his, um, transformation into uber-Christian came as a reaction to his Hollywood childhood. You know, snorting blow off a hookers belly at 14, et al. And Alan Thicke...his TV dad...according to real son, Robin, left no Miss Universe contestant intact - hymenally speaking. But please, Mr. Kirk...keep your now not-so-new transformation and inner rejoicing to yourself and to those who can appreciate it - namely, a bitter, old Pat Robertson and The 700 Club and that mauve-headed thing on Praise the Lord. Onward! Onward, Christian soldiers!
18
Dude is a typical dickhead who says things he has no proof of. Where's the proof Kirk? BTW, we've seen indisputable evidence that what you're saying is a perfect description of religion.
19
I have counted at least three places in the Bible where same sex relationships or being gay was accepted, or even celebrated. Why don't I hear the fundies mentioning that part of the Bible? Curious.
21
Story of Naomi & Ruth, for example, @ 19 - "your people will be my people, your God will be my God." Yeah, not too much reference to that Bible story when people talk about the Bible & gays.
This is a story du jour. By next week we can go back to not remembering Kirk Cameron exists.
This is a story du jour. By next week we can go back to not remembering Kirk Cameron exists.
22
Cameron just thinks he has gay friends, because, being a Hollywood has-been,he's spent the greater part of his career around gay people.
Note to Cameron: Just because somebody applies your make-up, or mends your costume, or tells you how to enter frame, doesn't make them your FRIEND. They get PAID to do that; there's a big difference.
Note to Cameron: Just because somebody applies your make-up, or mends your costume, or tells you how to enter frame, doesn't make them your FRIEND. They get PAID to do that; there's a big difference.
25
Of course he has gay friends. Where else is a fine upstanding born-again Christian man with a fine upstanding born-again Christian wife going to get a blow job?
26
@23 The percentage of children born out of wed-lock is four times higher today than it was in the late 1950s. I think increased acceptance of sexual relationships of the non-hetero-married monogamous variety probably has something to do with that. I don't think turning the clock back to 1959 is possible or desirable, but I do think that the large number of children being raised by single mothers today is a bit of a problem. It is the one part of Senator Frothy's argument about how the homos and the feminists are destroying civilization that can not be dismissed as neanderthal bigotry.
27
@19 and 21
There is also the story of Jonathan loving David with a love that is "passing the love of women," and the story of the Roman soldier approaching Jesus and asking him to cure his slave. Some people argue that the word that has been rendered as "slave" really means something more akin to "friend with benefits."
There is also the story of Jonathan loving David with a love that is "passing the love of women," and the story of the Roman soldier approaching Jesus and asking him to cure his slave. Some people argue that the word that has been rendered as "slave" really means something more akin to "friend with benefits."
29
To be fair we all have friends who are destroying civilization. You drive a SUV? Destroying civilization. You participate in market economics? Destroying civilization. You eat meat? Destroying civilization. Shop at Amazon? Destroying civilization. You watch reality tv? Destroying civilization.
Pretty much everything: Destroying civilization.
Pretty much everything: Destroying civilization.
30
@26--
Let me see if I understand your argument. I, as a gay man, am not allowed to get married. So because I live with my husband-in-Canada(who is not recognized as my husbuand by either my state or federal government), I am somehow encouraging my many heterosexual friends to have babies out of wedlock.
This is bullshit. If breeders want to have sex and make babies out of wedlock, that is their choice--and their responsibility. Like you, I believe that, as a general rule, it is better for children to grow up in two-parent households. But when they don't, it's not my fault.
Let me see if I understand your argument. I, as a gay man, am not allowed to get married. So because I live with my husband-in-Canada(who is not recognized as my husbuand by either my state or federal government), I am somehow encouraging my many heterosexual friends to have babies out of wedlock.
This is bullshit. If breeders want to have sex and make babies out of wedlock, that is their choice--and their responsibility. Like you, I believe that, as a general rule, it is better for children to grow up in two-parent households. But when they don't, it's not my fault.
31
@ 26
Um, I'm pretty sure that most of those out of wedlock babies are not the fault of gay men and women. I'm just sayin'.
Um, I'm pretty sure that most of those out of wedlock babies are not the fault of gay men and women. I'm just sayin'.
32
Why? Why is it a problem?
Nobody is bitching that Madonna (or another other divorced mom who makes +100k a year) is raising her two kids alone?
The problem isn't single parenthood. It's poverty.
but I do think that the large number of children being raised by single mothers today is a bit of a problem
Why? Why is it a problem?
Nobody is bitching that Madonna (or another other divorced mom who makes +100k a year) is raising her two kids alone?
The problem isn't single parenthood. It's poverty.
33
Kirk Cameron is a zero, and Piers Morgan is a son of a bitch who belongs in a jail cell, not raking in millions on American TV. Fuck both of them. Send Morgan back where he came from, where hopefully he will face charges.
34
26
Also 70% of adults were married then, vs 50% currently.
Being married is the best anti-poverty program ever devised, plus children raised in married households do much better in every way.
The increasing social and economic chaos that engulfs society is a direct product of the decline of marriage.
It's how we skip to Gommorah.....
Also 70% of adults were married then, vs 50% currently.
Being married is the best anti-poverty program ever devised, plus children raised in married households do much better in every way.
The increasing social and economic chaos that engulfs society is a direct product of the decline of marriage.
It's how we skip to Gommorah.....
36
26, The increase in unwed births has nothing do to with same sex marriage. You could more easily argue that the acceptance of interracial marriage caused it. (It didn't, but it's as logical as your argument.) Out of wedlock births rates went long, long before gay marriage was ever seriously considered. If you look at the statistics, African Americans, a group that expresses the most homophobia, and overwhelmingly votes against same sex marriage also have the highest rate of single mothers. (The majority of black children are born out of wedlock.)
37
So here is a question for people who are obsessed with "converting" the gays, what are we going to do with all the extra straight, both pre and post-conversion, men who cannot find wives because there simply aren't enough women? To me it doesn't seem to be a coincidence that the number of gay men - the number of lesbians is roughly equal to the surplus of young males there are in the US(ratio at birth in the US is about 105 males to every 100 females)
Simply put, there is no way everyone could be straight AND find a partner, so what Kirk Cameron is advocating is that to avoid squigging(sp?) him out we should be creating a large number of sexually frustrated males in this country, both those who feel attraction towards other males who aren't allowed to act on that impulse AND those who now cannot find mates due to increased competition from the "cured". In a country awash with guns I don't see HOW that plan could go wrong!
Simply put, there is no way everyone could be straight AND find a partner, so what Kirk Cameron is advocating is that to avoid squigging(sp?) him out we should be creating a large number of sexually frustrated males in this country, both those who feel attraction towards other males who aren't allowed to act on that impulse AND those who now cannot find mates due to increased competition from the "cured". In a country awash with guns I don't see HOW that plan could go wrong!
38
Clayton @28, 27 mentioned two of them. The Story of the Roman centurion and his slave showed up in Matthew and Luke. David and Jonathon, old testament, and I don't have the chapter/verse in front of me.
Another place is when Jesus was talking about marriage and divorce. At the end of it, he talked about eunochs, and how they were basically exempt from marrying women. He talked of three types of eunochs. We only think of one type, castrated men, when we think of eunochs, but Jesus defined three kinds; Eunochs born (gay men), eunochs made (castrated men) and eunochs chosen (men who chose to be celibate, to devote their lives to religion). So even then, it was recognised that some men were "born that way." No choice about it.
In Acts, it describes the first non-jew to be baptised into Christianity. He was an Ethiopian eunoch. Because of his station, it is probable that he was a born eunoch, not a made eunoch. In other words, the first non Jewish Christian was a gay black man.
Another place is when Jesus was talking about marriage and divorce. At the end of it, he talked about eunochs, and how they were basically exempt from marrying women. He talked of three types of eunochs. We only think of one type, castrated men, when we think of eunochs, but Jesus defined three kinds; Eunochs born (gay men), eunochs made (castrated men) and eunochs chosen (men who chose to be celibate, to devote their lives to religion). So even then, it was recognised that some men were "born that way." No choice about it.
In Acts, it describes the first non-jew to be baptised into Christianity. He was an Ethiopian eunoch. Because of his station, it is probable that he was a born eunoch, not a made eunoch. In other words, the first non Jewish Christian was a gay black man.
39
"...Kirk Cameron called homosexuality “unnatural,” and a behavior that is “ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” "
Whereas religiously-sanctioned bigotry isn't?
Whereas religiously-sanctioned bigotry isn't?
43
From BlindGossip.com:
"We are not saying that Kirk Cameron is gay. We are just saying that this blind is about him. It’s up to you to decide what he was doing in the car with those men in Griffith Park. And it will be up to Piers Morgan or another interviewer to directly ask Kirk Cameron if he is gay or if he has ever engaged in sexual acts with other men in Griffith Park… or anywhere else."
"We are not saying that Kirk Cameron is gay. We are just saying that this blind is about him. It’s up to you to decide what he was doing in the car with those men in Griffith Park. And it will be up to Piers Morgan or another interviewer to directly ask Kirk Cameron if he is gay or if he has ever engaged in sexual acts with other men in Griffith Park… or anywhere else."
44
"I believe we need to learn how to debate these things with greater love and respect," Cameron continued, "I’ve been encouraged by the support of many friends (including gay friends, incidentally).” He probably does have gay friends that support *that* statement. We do need to learn to debate with greater love and respect. Believe me, I have no issue telling someone lovingly that they are dead wrong.
45
Hey, now. Some of my closest friends are conservatives. Like, crazy Movement conservatives. One of my best friends was a speech writer for Laura Bush. Another works for Maggie Gallagher ferchrissakes.
They know that I think they are evil, and that I will oppose their political machinations at every turn. I know that they feel the same way about me. But they're also fun to hang out with, and give good advice and support when I need it. So I try to be there for them when it counts, too.
Frankly I think we could use a lot more cross-ideological socializing in this polarized echo-chambery country we live in.
They know that I think they are evil, and that I will oppose their political machinations at every turn. I know that they feel the same way about me. But they're also fun to hang out with, and give good advice and support when I need it. So I try to be there for them when it counts, too.
Frankly I think we could use a lot more cross-ideological socializing in this polarized echo-chambery country we live in.
47
@26 GAY people are responsible for the social/sexual habits of straight people?? That's the STUPIDEST thing I've read since the last Rush Limp-prod or Frothy quote.
49
Oh shit! I drive an SUV and listen to Top 40 radio! Although I am straight, those two things outweigh my straightness, making me a Destroyer of Civilization!
Is there some sort of, you know, points system? Where, you can get extra credit against your Destroyer tendencies if you bike to work, or only listen to classical music, or compost? So if you're gay, but you support your library and vow to renounce pleated window treatments and musical theater, you're balanced again?
Is there some sort of, you know, points system? Where, you can get extra credit against your Destroyer tendencies if you bike to work, or only listen to classical music, or compost? So if you're gay, but you support your library and vow to renounce pleated window treatments and musical theater, you're balanced again?
51
@49 Yes there is a point system. Unfortunately being born is 150 million points towards Destroying Civilization. To reverse that you have to rescue like five trillion dolphins. But breeding that many dolphins would wreck the eco-system. Thus: Destroying Civilization.
@50 Buses burn fossile fuels and are made from alloys raped from mother earth. Plus they carry other humans that have human babies (mostly). And that Destroys Civilization. Also not spending money means not participating in wealth redistribution via taxes and fees etc. Also: Destroying Civilization.
My personal hobby of attempting to use magnetic field manipulation to capture large asteroids into near earth orbit? Oddly judged to be: Not Destroying Civilization.
The only other activities that don't destroy civilization: Sex with me.
@50 Buses burn fossile fuels and are made from alloys raped from mother earth. Plus they carry other humans that have human babies (mostly). And that Destroys Civilization. Also not spending money means not participating in wealth redistribution via taxes and fees etc. Also: Destroying Civilization.
My personal hobby of attempting to use magnetic field manipulation to capture large asteroids into near earth orbit? Oddly judged to be: Not Destroying Civilization.
The only other activities that don't destroy civilization: Sex with me.
53
@28
2 Samuel 1:26
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for mr was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.
You should read 1 Samuel, chapter 20. So you know of the the covenant made in love between the two. My personal take, and it is only an opinion, that it is this passage along with the culture of Platonic Greece, where the bonding of brotherly equals was considered a nobel form of contact spread to Rome and then to Christianized premodern Europe that generated the Catholic and Orthodox liturgies for same-
sex unions that many would like to pretend don't exist.
For the healing of the Centurian and his servant: Matthew 8:5-13, and Luke 7:1-10.
There are Biblical scholars who argue that in the original Greek (there are no original copies of any books found in the Bible, the earliest copies date about 200 CE. There are no identical versions either, to my knowledge, a priori assumption is of interpolations which are found in other ancient literature: Classical, Homeric, Hellenistic, Jewish and Christian.) that the word servant indicates that sexual intimacy was part of services provided,
Jesus discussing eunuchs: Matthew 19:12.
Some people see the relationship between Naomi and Ruth as Biblical support for same-sex devotion. See the Book of Ruth.
Be aware that those who believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, cannot allow alternate understandings of these passages. They do not believe that God would allow a mistranslation and will expend a huge amount of intellectual and emotional energy, appealing to arguments that without their emotional attachment they would not find convincing. They are tenacious, perhaps out of fear that they will loose their community and the salvation they believe they have. So they will tell you that David loved Jonathan because Jonathan recognized that David was God's chosen one and was loyal. They will ignore different translations of the word "servant" in the story of the Centurian's faith. They will tell you that when Jesus said that some eunuchs were " made that way " that he was saying they were impotent heterosexual males. And, they will tell you that Ruth was a good daughter-in-law and that she was renouncing her foreign gods (Ruth 1:16-18).
I hope these were the references you sought.
@ 19: SeattleKim,
Sorry if I overstepped myself here.
More...
2 Samuel 1:26
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for mr was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.
You should read 1 Samuel, chapter 20. So you know of the the covenant made in love between the two. My personal take, and it is only an opinion, that it is this passage along with the culture of Platonic Greece, where the bonding of brotherly equals was considered a nobel form of contact spread to Rome and then to Christianized premodern Europe that generated the Catholic and Orthodox liturgies for same-
sex unions that many would like to pretend don't exist.
For the healing of the Centurian and his servant: Matthew 8:5-13, and Luke 7:1-10.
There are Biblical scholars who argue that in the original Greek (there are no original copies of any books found in the Bible, the earliest copies date about 200 CE. There are no identical versions either, to my knowledge, a priori assumption is of interpolations which are found in other ancient literature: Classical, Homeric, Hellenistic, Jewish and Christian.) that the word servant indicates that sexual intimacy was part of services provided,
Jesus discussing eunuchs: Matthew 19:12.
Some people see the relationship between Naomi and Ruth as Biblical support for same-sex devotion. See the Book of Ruth.
Be aware that those who believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, cannot allow alternate understandings of these passages. They do not believe that God would allow a mistranslation and will expend a huge amount of intellectual and emotional energy, appealing to arguments that without their emotional attachment they would not find convincing. They are tenacious, perhaps out of fear that they will loose their community and the salvation they believe they have. So they will tell you that David loved Jonathan because Jonathan recognized that David was God's chosen one and was loyal. They will ignore different translations of the word "servant" in the story of the Centurian's faith. They will tell you that when Jesus said that some eunuchs were " made that way " that he was saying they were impotent heterosexual males. And, they will tell you that Ruth was a good daughter-in-law and that she was renouncing her foreign gods (Ruth 1:16-18).
I hope these were the references you sought.
@ 19: SeattleKim,
Sorry if I overstepped myself here.
54
It's infuriating that bigots are still using the "but I have _____ friends!" excuse. They're just trying to justify their bigotry.
55
Um, civilization is unnatural. That's kind of the point. We want to be able to sleep through the night without a jackal ripping off our face.
56
@50: my bus is an electric trolley. i pay plenty taxes. and whereas sex with you may not destroy civilization, i bet it destroys something else.
57
Really? Cars and TV aren't natural. Neither is peanut butter and bread (even the "natural" kind. Made by humans? Not natural).
You want to give up the whole of society and technology because they're not natural too? *Now* look who's trying to destroy civilization.
Shit for brains.
You want to give up the whole of society and technology because they're not natural too? *Now* look who's trying to destroy civilization.
Shit for brains.
58
@30 & 36 I'm in favor of marriage equality and I certainly wouldn't argue that individual gay men and women are responsible for out of wedlock births. However, since the '50s American society has become accepting of a much wider range of sexual expression. The gay rights movement has been a part of that. I think that the greater sexual freedom we now enjoy is in part responsible for the decline in marriage and the increase in single parent households. If married monogamous hetero-sex is the only kind available then that gives men, and to a lesser extent women, a powerful incentive to get married and stay married.
59
58, " If married monogamous hetero-sex is the only kind available then that gives men, and to a lesser extent women, a powerful incentive to get married and stay married."
The scenario you describe never existed. It's like the fantasy that the fifties were a simpler, less troubled time, and Mayberry was a realistic portrayal of life in a southern town. Television programs from the fifties are as representative of life in the era as The Brady Bunch was of life in the late sixties/early seventies.
What has changed is people are more willing to be open and truthful about their sex lives. It was always there, people just don't lie and pretend as the did in decades past.
The scenario you describe never existed. It's like the fantasy that the fifties were a simpler, less troubled time, and Mayberry was a realistic portrayal of life in a southern town. Television programs from the fifties are as representative of life in the era as The Brady Bunch was of life in the late sixties/early seventies.
What has changed is people are more willing to be open and truthful about their sex lives. It was always there, people just don't lie and pretend as the did in decades past.
60
@59 I read somewhere that nowadays 95% of women have sex before they get married, as opposed to the 1950s when 80% of women had sex before they were married. If that is true, then it would suggest that premarital sex certainly happened back then, but that it was significantly less common than it is today.
61
60, the increase in premarital sex for women is due to the availability of female birth control, but also, women tended to get married earlier in life in the 50s. Not to mention, people outright lied about their sex lives. Homosexuality had absolutely nothing to do with it.
But going back to your original statement about unwed births, and the acceptance of homosexuality. African Americans have one of the highest rates of single motherhood, yet are one of the least accepting groups of homosexuality. The vast majority of black children are born to single mothers. Latinos also have a very high out of out of wedlock birthrate, yet also tend to be very homophobic. Both groups vote overwhelmingly against same sex marriage. Homosexuality, and unwed births completely unrelated. Your feelings, and assumptions have no basis in fact.
But going back to your original statement about unwed births, and the acceptance of homosexuality. African Americans have one of the highest rates of single motherhood, yet are one of the least accepting groups of homosexuality. The vast majority of black children are born to single mothers. Latinos also have a very high out of out of wedlock birthrate, yet also tend to be very homophobic. Both groups vote overwhelmingly against same sex marriage. Homosexuality, and unwed births completely unrelated. Your feelings, and assumptions have no basis in fact.
62
Celibacy is unnatural AND abnormal. While same sex behavior is found throughout the natural world celibacy is not.
63
@27, 38, I was going to write a version of what Kim in Portland already wrote upthread, so there is no need for it. Kim, I've met people who are very proud of their chosen interpretation of these passages (do you remember an old discussion here about the problem of the word ἀρσενοκοῖται? in 1 Cor 6:9?). One thing I found curious about them is that they (or at least the rank and file, like missionaries) usually are not aware of the problems of textual hermeneutics (those who are tend to avoid such discussions) and keep claiming that "things are as clear as can be", and that this possibly ambiguous passage is clarified bat that much more obviously anti-gay passage (say, Corinthians by Timothy, or by Romans). This means they don't really have a way to deal with those who disagree: the label "heretic" is no longer socially viable, and tolerating their opinion is not possible since the fact they support a "heinous sin" means they will eventually, if they remain unrepentant, go to hell, and a good Christian can only feel sad about that.
I found that surprising: Christians saying about other Christians -- who accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, who strive to lead a moral life following his example, who look to the bible for moral guidance, etc. etc. etc... are nevertheless going to hell. Because of how they interpret a word like ἀρσενοκοῖται. All the other things don't matter. And yet they feel comfortable with this idea; more so than they would be with the idea of admitting the possibility of other legitimate interpretations.
I found that surprising: Christians saying about other Christians -- who accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, who strive to lead a moral life following his example, who look to the bible for moral guidance, etc. etc. etc... are nevertheless going to hell. Because of how they interpret a word like ἀρσενοκοῖται. All the other things don't matter. And yet they feel comfortable with this idea; more so than they would be with the idea of admitting the possibility of other legitimate interpretations.
64
@61 (Rob in Baltimore), so you actually think that the big change brought by the sexual revolution in the '60s is that people started admitting the stuff they did -- non-orthodox, 50's-TV-show sex and family life had always been around in more or less the same proportions, but people led double lives, or married earlier to have sex? As Henry Miller said in Reds, that there had always been as much 'fucking' then as now (he was talking about the '20s, but still)?
65
@61 I don't think changes in sexual mores are the only thing driving the rise in out of wedlock births. I think that the rise of the welfare state and the lack of well paid working class jobs play a role as well. Often a poor man's baby mama will not want him around because the public assistance she is eligible for as a single mother is worth more than what he can earn. Blacks and Latinos are more likely to be poor so those other two factors have a disproportionate effect on them. Also, I'm not arguing that there is a direct casual connection between the gay rights movement and the break-down of the family. What I'm arguing is that the overall loosening of sexual mores has contributed to the rise in the number of single parents and that the gay rights movement could not have happened w/o that general change.
66
64, People always romanticize the past. The 50's weren't a simpler time. People weren't more noble. TV and movies of the time would lead one to believe it, but they were illusions. Nobody lived like "Leave It To Beaver". If single woman got pregnant in the 50's she either very quickly got married, (Gee what could go wrong with a hastily arranged shotgun marriage?) or she "went away to boarding school." Virtually never was it admitted that a child was conceived out of wedlock. Sexuality hasn't changed, only people's honestly and openness about sex has.
67
65, Again your assumption are not based in fact. Birth control lead to the idea of a liberated woman, and female sexual freedom. The liberated woman and sexual freedom lead to the idea of a woman having a career outside of the home. (World War II was also instrumental in seeding the idea of the working woman.) The idea of a career woman lead to the idea that a woman can, and should put off marriage and family to fulfill her own goals, and not put a man's needs above her's. All of that has lead to the idea that marriage isn't a necessarily a primary goal of women just to have a home and family. Homosexuality has never been a factor in any of that.
The growth in the acceptance of homosexual marriage is very recent, and is encouragement for more marriage, not less. You'll not find a single straight person who bases their marriage decisions on whether or not gay marriage is legal.
The growth in the acceptance of homosexual marriage is very recent, and is encouragement for more marriage, not less. You'll not find a single straight person who bases their marriage decisions on whether or not gay marriage is legal.
68
@66 Just from talking to straight guys a little older than myself, I find it hard to believe that there was as much fucking going on in the '40s and '50s as in the decades that followed. A former '60s radical once bragged to me that back in his Woodstock days he once scored with eight different women in two days. You have to divide everything straight guys say about stuff like that by three, which means he actually only nailed two and two-thirds women in two days. Still, a guy who had come of age in the '40s or '50s would not even make such a claim. Probably, things back then were not as different as Rick Santorum thinks that they were, that doesn't mean that nothing has changed.
69
@67 So you think the gay rights movement would have happened even without all those flower children and the summer of love?
70
68, From 1944: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0mJjH8T3…
Some STD prevention posters from the past.
https://www.google.com/search?q=world+wa…
Again, the apocryphal and anecdotal stories of some straight guys to whom you've spoken are not based in fact.
Some STD prevention posters from the past.
https://www.google.com/search?q=world+wa…
Again, the apocryphal and anecdotal stories of some straight guys to whom you've spoken are not based in fact.
71
69, First you claimed that the acceptance of homosexuality lead to the acceptance in unwed motherhood. (Again the groups with the highest out of wedlock births are also the least accepting of homosexuality) Now you say that the acceptance of straight unmarried sex lead the the increased acceptance of gay marriage.
Birth control lead to the acceptance of unmarried straight sex, not homosexuality. Perhaps the acceptance of gay marriage was very, very remotely spurred by the acceptance of straight unmarried sex, but that is the complete opposite of your original premise.
Gay marriage encourages more more marriage, not less.
Birth control lead to the acceptance of unmarried straight sex, not homosexuality. Perhaps the acceptance of gay marriage was very, very remotely spurred by the acceptance of straight unmarried sex, but that is the complete opposite of your original premise.
Gay marriage encourages more more marriage, not less.
72
@65 and 69
Correlation is not causation.
I will agree that people are probably more inclined to have sex outside of marriage than they were a generation or two ago. I will also agree that there is less social stigma for doing so, and that gays and lesbians have been both instigators and beneficiaries of that social shift.
However, there is a HUGE difference between choosing to have sex outside of wedlock, and choosing to have a baby outside of wedlock. Admittedly, we are much less likely to brand a woman with a scarlet letter A, and more likely to accept her socially. But it is also undeniable that there are an entire constellation of social, emotional and financial support mechanisms present to assist married parents that do not exist to help single parents. Frankly, I don't understand straight people who like each other enough to have babies together, but don't like each other enough to get married. And I know bunches of them.
And at a time when arguably THE gay rights issue is the fight to achieve marriage rights, it makes no sense to me for someone to say that social acceptance of gays--who aren't allowed to marry in most places--has created an environment in which straight parents no longer feel as though they need to get married.
Correlation is not causation.
I will agree that people are probably more inclined to have sex outside of marriage than they were a generation or two ago. I will also agree that there is less social stigma for doing so, and that gays and lesbians have been both instigators and beneficiaries of that social shift.
However, there is a HUGE difference between choosing to have sex outside of wedlock, and choosing to have a baby outside of wedlock. Admittedly, we are much less likely to brand a woman with a scarlet letter A, and more likely to accept her socially. But it is also undeniable that there are an entire constellation of social, emotional and financial support mechanisms present to assist married parents that do not exist to help single parents. Frankly, I don't understand straight people who like each other enough to have babies together, but don't like each other enough to get married. And I know bunches of them.
And at a time when arguably THE gay rights issue is the fight to achieve marriage rights, it makes no sense to me for someone to say that social acceptance of gays--who aren't allowed to marry in most places--has created an environment in which straight parents no longer feel as though they need to get married.
73
@71 My argument is and always has been that greater acceptance of just-for-fun sex (as opposed to the baby making variety) has contributed to the break down of the family.
74
@73--
Even if I were to buy your latest in a series of dubious arguments, I would argue that choosing to have a baby outside of marriage does not equal "just-for-fun" sex.
Even if I were to buy your latest in a series of dubious arguments, I would argue that choosing to have a baby outside of marriage does not equal "just-for-fun" sex.
75
73, Birth control lead to the open acceptance of sex for fun. Humans have had sex for fun as long as mankind has existed.
Besides that not what you originally said.
Once again I will say that the demographics with the most out of wedlock births are the least accepting of homosexuality Homosexuality, and gay marriage have no impact on straight people choosing to get married or not, or on out of wedlock births. Birth control created the change in the increase in openness of heterosexuality, not homosexuality.
Also, are a married couple who cannot have children just having sex for fun? There's no other component to their sexual activity?
Besides that not what you originally said.
The percentage of children born out of wed-lock is four times higher today than it was in the late 1950s. I think increased acceptance of sexual relationships of the non-hetero-married monogamous variety probably has something to do with that.
Once again I will say that the demographics with the most out of wedlock births are the least accepting of homosexuality Homosexuality, and gay marriage have no impact on straight people choosing to get married or not, or on out of wedlock births. Birth control created the change in the increase in openness of heterosexuality, not homosexuality.
Also, are a married couple who cannot have children just having sex for fun? There's no other component to their sexual activity?
76
Ken Mehlman, Up at 65, you said,
But earlier in the thread, you answered this question at 23,
With this:
You're not being consistent here.
Homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with out of wedlock births, or the "breakdown of the family". Banning same sex marriage only prevents gay parents from marrying.
I'm not arguing that there is a direct casual connection between the gay rights movement and the break-down of the family.
But earlier in the thread, you answered this question at 23,
But HOW are teh gheys destroying civilization?
With this:
@23 The percentage of children born out of wed-lock is four times higher today than it was in the late 1950s. I think increased acceptance of sexual relationships of the non-hetero-married monogamous variety probably has something to do with that.
You're not being consistent here.
Homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with out of wedlock births, or the "breakdown of the family". Banning same sex marriage only prevents gay parents from marrying.
77
I think the last time Kirk Cameron has a gay friend was when 12 year old me used to beat off to this poster.
I'd be much less embarrassed if he wasn't such a dumbass today (though I'm pretty sure, even then, it was the leather more than the guy in it.)
I'd be much less embarrassed if he wasn't such a dumbass today (though I'm pretty sure, even then, it was the leather more than the guy in it.)
79
you girls' are intellectually handicapped because you slavishly buy into Danny's many strawmen.
acceptance of homosexual 'marriage' is not as much a cause of the decline of marriage and the family as a symptom that demonstrates that the disease is extensive, lethal and irreversible .
acceptance of homosexual 'marriage' is not as much a cause of the decline of marriage and the family as a symptom that demonstrates that the disease is extensive, lethal and irreversible .
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Listen Up, Gays: They're Coming to Recruit You by Cienna Madrid
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (80) RSS