I heard an interview with you about your It Gets Better campaign. I was saddened and frustrated with your comments regarding people of faith and their perpetuation of bullying. As someone who loves the Lord and does not support gay marriage, I can honestly say I was heartbroken to hear about the young man who took his own life.
If your message is that we should not judge people based on their sexual preference, how do you justify judging entire groups of people for any other reason (including their faith)? There is no part of me that took any pleasure in what happened to that young man.
To that end, to imply that I would somehow encourage my children to mock, hurt, or intimidate another person for any reason is completely unfounded and offensive. Being a follower of Christ is, above all things, a recognition that we are all imperfect, fallible, and in desperate need of a savior. We cannot believe that we are better or more worthy than other people.
Please consider your viewpoint, and please be more careful with your words in the future.
L.R.
I’m sorry your feelings were hurt by my comments.
No, wait. I’m not. Gay kids are dying. So let’s try to keep things in perspective: Fuck your feelings.
A question: Do you “support” atheist marriage? Interfaith marriage? Divorce and remarriage? All are legal, all go against Christian and/or traditional ideas about marriage, and yet there’s no “Christian” movement to deny marriage rights to atheists or people marrying outside their respective faiths or people divorcing and remarrying. Why the hell not?
Sorry, L.R., but so long as you support the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, it’s clear that you do believe that some people—straight people—are “better or more worthy” than others.
And—sorry—but you are partly responsible for the bullying and physical violence being visited on vulnerable LGBT children. The kids of people who see gay people as sinful or damaged or disordered and unworthy of full civil equality—even if those people strive to express their bigotry in the politest possible way (at least when they happen to be addressing a gay person)—learn to see gay people as sinful, damaged, disordered, and unworthy. And while there may not be any gay adults or couples where you live, or at your church, or in your workplace, I promise you that there are gay and lesbian children in your schools. And while you can only attack gays and lesbians at the ballot box, nice and impersonally, your children have the option of attacking actual gays and lesbians, in person, in real time.
Real gay and lesbian children. Not political abstractions, not “sinners.” Gay and lesbian children.
Try to keep up: The dehumanizing bigotries that fall from the lips of “faithful Christians,” and the lies about us that vomit out from the pulpits of churches that “faithful Christians” drag their kids to on Sundays, give your children license to verbally abuse, humiliate, and condemn the gay children they encounter at school. And many of your children—having listened to Mom and Dad talk about how gay marriage is a threat to family and how gay sex makes their magic sky friend Jesus cry—feel justified in physically abusing the LGBT children they encounter in their schools. You don’t have to explicitly “encourage [your] children to mock, hurt, or intimidate” queer kids. Your encouragement—along with your hatred and fear—is implicit. It’s here, it’s clear, and we’re seeing the fruits of it: dead children.
Oh, and those same dehumanizing bigotries that fill your straight children with hate? They fill your gay children with suicidal despair. And you have the nerve to ask me to be more careful with my words?
Did that hurt to hear? Good. But it couldn’t have hurt nearly as much as what was said and done to Asher Brown and Justin Aaberg and Billy Lucas and Cody Barker and Seth Walsh—day in, day out for years—at schools filled with bigoted little monsters created not in the image of a loving God, but in the image of the hateful and false “followers of Christ” they call Mom and Dad.
I am engaged to a man whose sexual orientation is somewhat confusing to me.
A few months ago, I discovered transgender porn on his computer. When I asked him about it, he said he just watches all kinds of porn “just to watch it.” That sounded like total bullshit to me—and it was proved to be total bullshit when I discovered that he watches ONLY this type of porn. I also recently discovered a letter he had composed a few years back to another man asking him to “hook up.” The letter also states that my fiancé had a girlfriend, and since “discretion is very important” to him, he could only hook up when she was out of town.
I can deal with somebody being bisexual. I have bisexual fantasies myself. However, I can’t deal with someone lying to himself and to me, and being unfaithful. Sadly, I can’t really make this guy confess to me that he is bi. When I tried, he simply told me, “You are so blind.” What does that mean?
I really don’t want to dump the guy. I love him. My question is, I guess, what the fuck do I do? I feel like crazy bitch supreme trying to get this out of him, but it’s impossible not to think about.
Bitchy Girlfriend
There’s nothing to be confused about: Your fiancé is very clearly bisexual. Gay men just aren’t into chicks-with-dicks porn; that’s a genre that appeals exclusively to straight/straightish/bi male viewers.
So why can he be open about his cocksuckery with a complete stranger—that dude he sent the letter that you “discovered”—but not with you?
It’s a tired cliché, I realize, and I shy away from it for that reason, but in this case the shoe fits: Your fiancé has a bad case of the internalized homophobias. He finds it easier to be open with someone he doesn’t care about and is unlikely to see ever again precisely because he doesn’t care about that person and isn’t going to see him again. If you or the other people in his life he’s close to knew, he fears you would see him as damaged or inferior because that’s how he sees himself.
So, yep, a bad case of the internalized homophobias. He’s not entirely responsible for contracting this malady—our homophobic culture is the disease vector here—but, as an adult, he is responsible for working through it, for overcoming it, for being truthful with himself and the people he claims to love.
If he can’t be honest with you—the snoop he claims to love—about his sexual orientation, and if being cheated on is a deal breaker for you (and he will cheat on you), don’t marry him.
I’m a loud fucker, just like the partner of the woman who wrote in recently. With my consent, my partner uses a pillow to dampen my screams, so I don’t have to worry I’ll piss off the neighbors.
Lesbians Do Scream
It’s all fun and games—loud fun, ear-splitting games—until someone accidentally asphyxiates a screamer. But thanks for sharing, LDS.
Bravo Dan!
To believe that god is an asshole that thinks that his followers should degrade those that don’t follow him is shitbrained-wacko!
To believe that two consentual adults can love each other no matter thier sex or gender makes clear-as-day sense.
I’m all about degrading those that choose to be shitbrained bigots. I fully support euthinasia of shitbrained bigots. If shitbrained bigotry happens to be genetic then it’s time to weed out the gene pool an up the percentage of humans on this planet that can except that love (including love with sexual attraction) is love no matter what the sex/gender combination is in the relationship.
Once again…Dan, you are The Man!
Bravo Dan!
To believe that god is an asshole that thinks that his followers should degrade those that don’t follow him is shitbrained-wacko!
To believe that two consentual adults can love each other no matter thier sex or gender makes clear-as-day sense.
I’m all about degrading those that choose to be shitbrained bigots. I fully support euthinasia of shitbrained bigots. If shitbrained bigotry happens to be genetic then it’s time to weed out the gene pool an up the percentage of humans on this planet that can except that love (including love with sexual attraction) is love no matter what the sex/gender combination is in the relationship.
Once again…Dan, you are The Man!
BTW: I think a better lesson to be drawn from the high number of gay teenagers killing themselves is this: Gay teens who are rejected by their parents are over eight times as likely to attempt suicide as those who are not.
Eight times. Holy fuck.
I can’t think of any risk a reasonable parent would be willing to subject their kid to that increases the chance of death by that much. Which means homophobic parents should suck it up and give their gay kids a big hug when they come out. Unless they are so mean and hateful– such manifestly bad parents– that they’re OK with octupling the chance of a suicide.
Also: that anti-gay vitriol? Pretty much guarantees that your kid– who just might be gay– won’t come out to you and won’t get that love and support he or she absolutely fucking needs to make it through the teenage years.
For once, let’s actually think of the children. Not just any children, your children.
Here is a response Dan for your pounding on the Christian that wrote in. Chill the FUCK down. Homosexual are killing themselves? Homosexual children are having a tough time? Guess what they are hardly alone in any of these facts. Yes it is sad, yes it is a tragedy, yes we should do everything possible to see it happens less often but gays are not alone in such problems and pounding on Christians is not the answer to the problem. Especially when Christians, of all their stripes and flavors, outnumber by an order of magnitude any other religious group in the USA. None of Abrahamic Religions from a matter of dogma have a very friendly attitude towards gays. With these points in the front of your mind Dan now remember that the USA is a Republic where citizens vote on various things.
So what exactly do you think you are going to get done for your cause? Said cause being gay rights. When you bash the majority religious group, especially when some reach out to you? Besides venting your anger at people that is. People that get dumped on tend to respond in kind.
You are a case in point, Christians, especially the fundamentalist variety tend to dump on gays. So naturally you want to reply in kind. One slight problem when you are hugely in the minority it’s at best a fools game and most likely totally counterproductive.
Regarding L.R.
Your argument is basically this: “I don’t care if making wide generalizations hurts people’s feelings because that group [Christianity] as a whole is doing something wrong.”
People who bully might say: “I don’t care if making wide generalizations hurts people’s feelings because that group [Gay people] as a whole is doing something wrong.”
I’m having a hard time seeing how you’re taking the high road here. I know full well that you disagree with traditional religious views on homosexual behavior, but your argument basically comes down to a relativistic he-said-she-said kind of “logic”. No one will be convinced by this unless they already agree with you.
Those who advocate for gay marriage and the gay community in general have to realize it is a minority. As a minority it will not get very far making these “because I said so” type arguments. Logic and consistency is the only route. For instance, if love makes a family/ one man and one woman is an arbitrarily unfair distinction, why not allow all forms of marriage (especially polygamy)? If homosexually is not immoral because it can’t be helped, why isn’t pedophilia immoral? These are the questions, Dan, that need to be answered well if you are going to be taken seriously be the larger population.
I do realize that your comments are part of a noble effort to get kids through bullying. But please remember kids are bullied for all sorts of reasons and it all equally sucks. You do no help to your cause in referring to a “magical sky friend” which is as hurtful and insulting to religious people as any “faggot” uttered. You only give your opponents more ammunition with columns like these.
@ 151, I Hate Screen Names
Look, I can see you’re having trouble understanding any logic but your own, so let me try again. And let me preface this by saying that if there’s a “fat acceptance movement script,” I don’t have a copy, but I wish copies would be widely distributed.
First, we are talking primarily about social acceptance, not legal acceptance. Telling a kid he can or can’t be out and gay in the military isn’t the big issue right here: calling the kid a pansy, or whatever other forms of bullying take place, *is* the main issue here.
It is the lack of social acceptance that is what pushes these kids to depression and, some, to suicide.
If you are making public “anti-fat” comments, as you previously claimed you do, you *are* contributing to an unpleasant social atmosphere for heavier kids, and adults, too. You *are not* observing the basic level of courtesy that you tout. And if you make anti-fat comments, kids will make anti-fat comments. Even if you say, “Timmy is such an ugly little fattie, but shh my darling child, don’t repeat what I said because that isn’t polite,” first, your child is probably smart enough to realize right off that you’re a fucking hypocrite. Second, monkey see, monkey do. Third, you’re going to give that kid some serious image issues if they ever gain even a little weight, because they’ll worry about how fat they can get before mommy or daddy thinks they’re a fit subject for ridicule. Part of teaching kids to behave like a decent human being is behaving like one yourself: it’s easier to teach them not to be prejudiced if you, yourself, are not.
So that is why I am trying to get you to see the flaws in your own argumentation. Others have already pointed out that “fat” and “gay” aren’t parallel enough for you to use as an example of how Dan is wrong. I can lay it out for you–and debate your arguments point by point–if you really want me to. But, I get this feeling that your recourse to touting our “free” society as the reason we shouldn’t encourage real tolerance means that you’re probably hiding behind your “freedom” to believe whatever you want, even if what you believe is poorly reasoned and harmful to others.
And if you don’t think that there is a strong social message that fat people are “less than” in this culture, consider advertising, consider bullying, consider television…consider the thousand dominant sources that tell fat people daily that they are LESS attractive, LESS healthy, LESS desirable, than thin people. That they have LESS self-control… And all these things tell a fat kid or a fat adult that they are LESS deserving of love and fulfillment, because we value things like sexual attractiveness in this culture so highly–and decide that fat people can’t possibly be sexually attractive.
Personal social affiliation is different from social acceptance, but too many personal choices tipping the scale in one direction can create acceptance…or not. So when Dan is trying to “strong-arm” people into socially accepting gays, it’s because we do not have a civilized or enlightened level of true social acceptance yet, and he’s trying to tip the scale. An ignorant person will definitely remain ignorant if they don’t hear about other options (or sometimes have their faces rubbed in those options/ their own shit). A bigoted person will definitely remain bigoted unless there are social pressures that show bigotry as an undesirable trait. There is nothing wrong with what Dan is doing (and his logic is only flawed from your skewed perspective): he is trying to create a less ignorant, less bigoted social world.
Let me put it this way: what if you saw a fat person and thought, truly thought, “Wow, what an attractive individual!” Wouldn’t you be a happier person if you could celebrate that your world was filled with interesting, diverse, attractive people? Wouldn’t your children be happier if they had a more accepting perspective? Bigotry hurts the bigoted and makes them live in a scarier, uglier world, and so bigotry affects them nearly as much as it hurts those whom the bigotry is directed against.
We should see it as our responsibility to create as loving and accepting a world as possible for our children, and a big part of this means eradicating irrational prejudices.
If you can’t see this, I Hate Screen Names, and can’t get behind what Dan is trying to do, and what “fat acceptance” people are trying to do, well, I urge you to reconsider where your biases and opinions come from, and what kind of legacy they’re likely to leave.
I’m already posted my own much-more-confrontational-and-militant anti-religion rants on other threads, so I think I’ll let this one go. Instead I’ll take up an issue about which Queer Theory has much to say:
@27: Actually, it’s “orientation” that’s bullshit, as it indicates a universal, uniform, essentialized view of sexuality. “Preference” doesn’t indicate a “choice” in the sense of selecting from a number of equally-valid options (in fact, quite the opposite; it indicates that you CAN’T do anything about that which you prefer), it indicates a preference: for example, I prefer drinking gin and tonic to drinking urine – there’s nothing that’s going to change that preference if all things are equal, but there ARE environmental circumstances that might change it e.g. someone holding a gun to my head or I’m about to die from alcohol poisoning. This is a MUCH better reflection of sexuality; otherwise-straight men, for example, may have sex with other men when confined to mono-gender environments for long periods of time (prison). That doesn’t mean their preference isn’t heterosexual, and “preference” is better than “orientation” because “orientation” implies some sort of permanence/essentialism/exclusiveness that the prison scenario contradicts. “Preference” also allows for a much more varied set of parameters than “orientation”: my own sexual preferences are for oral-oral contact with persons who possess vulvas and vaginas and with whom I have some sort of intellectual compatibility, for performing oral- and digital-genital stimulation on said persons, for having oral-genital stimulation performed on me by said persons, and for engaging in both penetrative and non-penetrative genital-genital contact/stimulation with said persons in a generally egalitarian and vulvocentric manner, all not in public spaces. Now that’s both more descriptive and MUCH more accurate than “straight”, particularly since it doesn’t mean that I WON’T engage in other sex acts, just that these are the types of sex I prefer and seek out. The language of “preference” also helps deconstruct sexuality as an all-important, naturalized, essentialized aspect of “identity”, a phenomenon that is highly problematic given the sort of culture wars it engenders. Read some Judith Butler or Kate Bornstein; we need new discursive strategies, because Liberal Toleration (we’re talking the formal philosophy here) is proving to be NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Letter & response #1 gave me chills. I still have goosebumps.
Bravo Dan, very well done.
I like Savage Love but sometimes Dan Savage can be a self-righteous dick. Speaking as an All Gay Man, I think Chicks With Dicks are HOT HOT HOT. I wish Dan would stick to speaking from his own personal perspective on subjects. His perspective is at times funny, interesting, and intriguing. He does not however speak for All Gay Men, and I wish that he and All Others would avoid such blanket statements, it is a disservice to the GLBT community to have one of our own members making generalizations about us like that. Who died and made you Queen anyway Dan?
@158: Perhaps there is some confusion as to what I meant by “anti-fat” comments, which are not the same as “anti-fat people” comments. By anti-fat, I mean comments that Americans in general are obese, that obesity is an increasing problem, and that there needs to be some kind of national dialog on how to address and reduce Americans’ bulging waistlines. All of these comments implicitly or explicitly assume that obesity is “bad,” and are thus anti-fat. I don’t mean singling out individuals who happen to be overweight and disparaging them on that basis, which I agree is rude and uncalled for.
In addition, I don’t want my kid to be fat, for both health and social reasons. Were he to gain weight, I would encourage him to lose it, enroll him in more physical activities, etc. This too is an “anti-fat” attitude. And while I’ve repeatedly agreed that obesity is unlike homosexuality, that’s only because I am not anti-gay. Were I anti-gay; that is, were I the people Dan is trying to reach; I would have the same attitude about gaiety: I don’t want my kid to be gay, I would encourage him to be straight, etc.
My point in bringing up obesity was to show people how Dan’s argument looks when you don’t already agree with the conclusion. Since you are part of the fat-acceptance “choir,” as it were, you’re missing the whole point. So pick some other characteristic: your kid starts hanging out with Scientologists, or gets really into Ayn Rand, or decides that Jesus is his personal Savior. Preferably pick a characteristic that you disapprove of that has negative social implications, and make the same “bullycide” argument to yourself. It will very likely not seem as convincing to you as the gay and fat versions.
For instance: if I disapprove of potheads, and I tell my kid that he shouldn’t smoke pot, am I responsible for any bullying that potheads endure? Again, I’m not equating drug use to homosexuality or to obesity; I’m just trying to get you to see how the bullycide line of argument looks to people who think that their point of view is reasonable.
In other words, I’m trying to get people to see how the argument looks from the other side. I’m not agreeing with the other side.
Let me try stating it another way: bigotry doesn’t look like bigotry to the bigoted. Anti-gay people don’t dislike gays for no reason; they (think they) have valid rationales ground in the Bible or health or somesuch nonsense. Anti-fat people don’t dislike fat for no reason; they (think they) have valid reasons ground in health or ease of socialization. Anti-drug people don’t dislike drug use for no reason; they (think they) have valid reasons ground in health or exposure to criminality. So Dan’s argument doesn’t work unless you already agree with his conclusion; if you don’t, you will insist that you have valid reasons for holding the viewpoint that you do, and it isn’t your fault that some kids are assholes using that as an excuse.
I’m not suggesting that we not work to change people’s attitudes; my point is that you can’t use bullycide to morally blackmail people into changing those attitudes.
So I didn’t have the time and effort to read all of the comments, but I’m fairly certain I have a good grasp on the arguments being made. I’d just like to make a quick point that I hadn’t seen up until the 50th post or so.
If you are christian, you are a fucking morons. Plain and simple. There’s no division between good christian and bad christina…you’re all bad christians. Or more accurately, moronic christians. Every last one of you. The “Good” christians, in a way, are worse, because they seemingly have an at least somewhat rational head on their shoulders, and still believe that a magic man in the sky cares about them.
Religion truly is the opiate of the masses. People are too afraid to believe that their lives are ultimately meaningless and so they turn to “faith”. It’s called denial people.
I’ve always been a fairly tolerant person (despite what this post may entail) mainly because gay people, minorities, etc have absolutely no choice for who they are. If they did, no one would chose to be gay, why subject themselves to that?
But as a get older I grow less and less tolerant for so called religious people. Religion isn’t something you inherently are, its something you choose to be. And if you choose to be religious, I hate to say it, but you’re a fucking moron.
@ 151, I Hate Screen Names
Put simply, you are reserving the right to be a high school mean-girl, right?
*************
Overheard outside of IHSN’s office:
Colleague: “Why didn’t you invite Jane to party? You invited everyone else on the entire floor.”
IHSN: “Well, Brianna, you see… Jane is fat and Canadian. And while I support her right to get married, have a family, and serve in the military I really can’t deal with her being in my home, even for a few hours.
Colleague: “But she was the only one from the office you didn’t invite… I mean, you singled her out…”
IHSN: “I also have a screen saver of her. I photoshopped her head onto Jabba the Hutt. A few of us at work had a big laugh over that. See, here it is… Look! Hilarious, right?”
Colleague: “How can you be so mean to her?”
IHSN: “Mean? I’m not mean to her. I smile every time I pass her desk.”
**********
So you’re not a bigot, just an asshole, right?
@164: Are you incapable of arguing a position you do not hold?
I’ve repeatedly stated that I don’t actually agree with most of the positions I’m taking– that’s why I made my list of “undesirables” so whimsical. I’m trying to approach Dan’s statements more critically, as someone who doesn’t already agree with him. In other words, I’m trying to figure out if “bullycide” would actually convince anyone not already convinced. So your personal attacks are even less effective than usual.
RE: the first response – right on Dan. “We judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.” The “loving Christians” who are against gay rights can’t see past their “good” intentions of saving “traditional marriage” to the reality of the harm their actions cause in the world. Way to take him to task.
<3 Dan, Keep fighting the good fight, man. It definitely makes a difference and you’re in a rare position to really publicize this issue.
@ 157 – Homosexuality hurts no one. Pedophilia hurts children. Can’t tell the difference?
Dan,
As we all have opinions on everything the bottom line is everyone deserves the opportunity to live their lives as they see fit as long as it does not physically hurt anyone intentially. I believe something my Mom told me a long time ago, “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all” and another one that works for me, “you made your bed so lay in it”. All most of us want is to be recognized, treated fairly and live our lives to it’s fullest potential. Who are we to judge what is right and wrong? Love comes in different forms and fashion. Shouldn’t we all be trying to do our part with those who come across our paths in life? If we do won’t that help us to meet our maker (whoever we believe that may be in our personal part in the world of beliefs)? Bless you for being a voice for those who are timid, scared, in hiding, confused and most importantly…..alone.
Okay, I Hate Screen Names, your point has become clearer. It took a while, and perhaps in the future you might want to reconsider how incendiary and unclear you want your introductory salvos to be.
You would probably still benefit from considering some of what I’ve said–I don’t think you are entirely off the hook.
But two points to make:
The author of the letter to Dan is not anti-gay (presumably), so while your hypothetical model holds in your hypothetical world, it does not actually deal with the matter at hand. Since this person wasn’t anti-gay, Dan has a better chance of working an effect by pointing out that their choices make them complicit in the deaths of children. If you care, Dan is saying, actually do something besides be offended, for fuck’s sake. If you care about gay kids dying, maybe your hurt feelings as a “good Christian” shouldn’t be top priority. Sorry, good Christian, that you weren’t singled out and given a prize. Go and change your religious community’s outlook if you want a handshake and a cookie from me.
Second, you are totally correct that bigotry doesn’t look like bigotry to the bigoted, but maybe we need to work on turning the less-bigoted or non-bigoted members of primarily bigoted communities into activists for true acceptance…which might be the case here with the letter-writer Dan responded to.
No activism? Well, no gold star, and no sympathy for hurt feelings.
To all those who think we should be nice to the christians/religious people so as to get them on our side:
The point is not to convince them that homosexuality is good, acceptable or whatever.
The point is to convince them that DISCRIMINATION, for any motive, is absolutely WRONG, no matter what they think about the motive. And the only way it’s worked anywhere else is by showing them how it feels to be discriminated against so they get to see how unjust that is, and by saying WE’RE MAD AS HELL AND WE WON’T TAKE IT ANYMORE.
Thanks, Dan, for saying WE’RE MAD AS HELL AND WE WON’T TAKE IT ANYMORE.
@ 170 – I’m sorry, but the LW is indeed very anti-gay – just happens to be of the polite, hypocritical kind.
@ 170 – Sorry if this gets posted twice, but at the moment my previous post isn’t appearing on the thread.
As far as I’m concerned, the LW is indeed very anti-gay, but just happens to be of the polite, hypocritical kind.
To 168,
I agree. But I’m also a strict libertarian who is in favor of the legalization of all drugs, prostitution and really any activity that involves consenting adults.
My point is that most people don’t see it that way. A major talking point of the gay rights crowd is that innate desires make acting on those desires moral (or at least not immoral). As a libertarian, frankly I don’t care about the moral implications, only whether or not something should be illegal. However, most people do care about the morality of the thing, including the gay community. I was simply trying to say that the aforementioned argument is insufficient in the effort to prove the morality of homosexuality. This is especially pronounced because the gay community is arguing for more than equal rights. I have spoken with many on the matter, and the consensus seems to be that even if there were full legal equality, that would not be enough, and (at least on the marriage question) there will be no rest even if something like universal civil unions are obtained.
So if you think morality is important, you need to come up with something better, or limit your argument to the legal ones only.
@ all the cool Christians out there, especially 24/Tschussle, right on. I’m not religious–I left the Catholic church after a nasty childhood situation in which I was expected to conform without questioning–but I respect and admire people who are true to the “love one another” part of Christ’s message.
When I first read L.R.’s letter and Dan’s response, I thought to myself, “I can see both sides’ point”. I still can, after reading all the vitriol from extremists on the anti-Christian side and comparing it with the peaceful messages from the Christians.
That said, I applaud Dan for his forceful response–he’s right to call hypocrites on their bullshit. However, he should acknowledge that human decency does not depend on religious affiliations–there have been horrible acts committed in the name of God in ALL religions. Ignorance and cruelty feed bigotry, not religion.
@170: Cool, we finally disagree on something of substance.
I think LR is anti-gay. The first paragraph says
My opinion is that anyone who does not support gay marriage is anti-gay. Forget social acceptance; they still don’t think gays are entitled to full legal rights.
So my hypothetical model is applicable here. 🙂
I was raised by a man who saw gay people as “sinful or damaged or disordered and unworthy of full civil equality”, but I didn’t grow up to be like him.
I agree that anyone who’s against gay marriage is bigoted, and it doesn’t matter if your religion *supports* your bigotry — it’s STILL bigotry. Sorry.
Also, it’s actually REALLY difficult to suffocate someone with a pillow unless that person is in a coma.
@165, IHSN
MY personal attacks less effective than usual? But its my first one! Such a critic…
I’ll try harder next time.
So now you are saying you DO NOT hold the following personal opinion:
“But I get off the train once it states that we all need to socially accept everyone.”
Careful, now. You seem to be shifting your thesis a bit.
@178: I picked those words with care. Do you think we need to socially accept everyone? Or can you think of categories of people you are not required to welcome into your life?
Wie die Alten sprechen, so handeln die Jungen …
GO, DAN, GO!!
Your column is the best!!!
First, thank you for the chat with the WAPO crowd earlier this week. You are a wonderful advocate and so very passionate about this issue. It is shameful to many of us how this issue continues to be a political cornerstone for people who are “haters.” They bring nothing of value for this country. I can only hope that this too shall pass.
Your response above was probably the most powerful argument I have heard in a long time. I, personally, am sick to death of hating in the name of religion, whatever religion that may be. BRAVO, Dan, and thank you. We are your fans and we thank you for saying what we all feel but in a much better way than most of us can express.
Theresa
“If your message is that we should not judge people based on their sexual preference, how do you justify judging entire groups of people for any other reason (including their faith)?”
Still using the old “sexual preference” phrase, eh? Sexual orientation is no more a “preference” than is being right-handed. On the other hand, religionists choose to be religious. They weren’t born that way…it was a choice, and continues to be a choice. They could change if they wanted.
Question all the rich, (or THINK they’re rich) corrupt, in-your-face mortals who openly call themselves “God”, because they obviously are NOT, while living insanely in the dark.
I wish someone would explain this to my sister, the “we’re above the rules” doofus she married, and their pure-as-the-golden-snow son. After 34 years, I’m blue in the face.
Actually, there probably ARE gay teens and adults at this person’s church. I was one of those teens and then adult–in church, in Christian school and Fundie College. In total repression, but I was there.
My biggest problem is the untruths/lies that are being told by religious people: gays are all pedophiles, gays are a danger to kids, gays will recruit kids/teens/adults into the gay ‘lifestyle’, gays die young, etc. etc. (Plus, is it logical that the ENTIRE male population of Sodom was gay? Come on, even San Francisco is only 12% gay. And Sodom existed 1,000s of years before the days of mass communication or mass transit, etc.). And they ignore the entire book of Leviticus, except that one verse about gays.
Who’s talking about “absolution”? An actual Christian who supports gay rights completely can be vocal and activist AS a Christian, or can abdicate Christianity itself to the bigots. I question both the logic and the intention of people who suggest that the latter is the only noble response.
A friend of mine, a mom of a gay son, protests AT churches, left one domination for another, gets arrested in public acts of civil disobedience with her gay son, and advocates online. Are you really suggesting that it would be better for her – for gay rights or anything else – to make the empty gesture of denouncing “Christianity” per se? I do not.
Okay, I Hate Screen Names. It becomes clear that it is pointless to talk to you, because you will simply define things however you want in order to be “right,” (whatever the fuck that even means at this point), and you pick and choose which points to respond to. Overall, your comments are far more worthy of ridicule than earnest debate.
BDNF, I eagerly await your second insult barrage against IHSN.
Thanks for the response to LR. You put all my thoughts that I’ve never been able to articulate well enough. I’d love to save this and send it to my mother…. except I stopped talking to that Catholic bitch many years ago. Her initials ain’t LR, but otherwise, this sounds a lot like her.
We’ll, maybe next time I’m going thru my spam folder and see some rightwing urban legend that she is forwarding because she is sceert to death of what Obama’s gonna do, I can have a reply.
“If your message is that we should not judge people based on their sexual preference, how do you justify judging entire groups of people for any other reason (including their faith)?”
Still using the old “sexual preference”, eh? Sexual orientation is no more of a “preference” than is being right-handed. However, religionists choose to be religious. No one is born religious…it’s a choice. You could change if you wanted to.
IHSN, no one really agrees with you, and no one thinks you are right, and you are clearly not even consistent or coherent. So please stop trolling the board, and come up with a better way to get your jollies.
And, finally, IHSN, nothing you are saying is particularly interesting, original, important, or persuasive…So you gotta ask yourself, why do you persist?
@187: You made two points that were predicated on LR not being anti-gay. I disagreed and claimed that LR was anti-gay. If that doesn’t respond to your points, I don’t know what would.
But, whatevs.
@190-191: “Nobody likes you, go away”?
I am a-titter at the irony.
Absolutely Dan. Thank you. Christians like the one you replied to have such a sad sense of befuddled entitlement because they cannot connect their hateful words with the hateful deeds they engender. Honestly they do not know. They are too lazy to actually be spiritual – all they know is that they are afraid of what is in their own hearts. All they know are the things they don’t know. God bless you Dan.
Would someone please give Dan Savage the Pulitzer Prize or something for his answer to the first letter? I feel like one of the universe’s missions was just completed with that response said. Dan, I love you forever! XOXO
I can’t find divinity in a book written by ancient pencilnecks who found a way to not be productive and still make a living. Divinity is in the soul of each of us – and love is an outgrowth, or a sign of that divinity. It is in the trees, and the rocks, and the stars, and they care not for how we love each other. If someone were to tell you that they wanted your money, or your vote, or your labour, or your force of arms, and in exchange they will tell you how to live, wouldn’t you tell them to take a hike? Wouldn’t you toss them, Detroit-style, out the door? Take every made thing – why is it sacred to you? It is an object, be it a book of fables and legends, or a chunk of wood, or a sparkly rock…how is it relevant? It is only made relevant by what you yourself have invested in it. It has no intrinsic value. You might as well hold the Brothers Grimm as prophets, or canonize J.R.R. Tolkien, or make offerings to an image of Carl Sagan. Any of these actions make as much sense as venerating the Christian bible and witnessing for Christ. So why do it? None of you proclaimers have one good reason to give your time or your money or your labour to organizations that, at best, imperfectly duplicate the work of state agencies and secular organizations. Abandon it. It does not serve you. Love is not in a barn with a very pointy roof, it is not in a great hall, it is not with the pointy hat brigades, nor is it with the televangelist politicians. It exists nowhere if it does not exist within your own hearts. It doesn’t come from a book, or a building, or an organization. It comes from you and only you. Only you can add to its capacity, only you can take it away. No beardy-man in the sky can love you like another human can, nor can he snatch away your ability to love one another. You do yourselves such great harm. You waste all your love on the promise of a greater life after you abandon the rest of humanity – when you can have the best possible one right now by embracing them.
I can’t find divinity in a book written by ancient pencilnecks who found a way to not be productive and still make a living. Divinity is in the soul of each of us – and love is an outgrowth, or a sign of that divinity. It is in the trees, and the rocks, and the stars, and they care not for how we love each other.
If someone were to tell you that they wanted your money, or your vote, or your labour, or your force of arms, and in exchange they will tell you how to live, wouldn’t you tell them to take a hike? Wouldn’t you toss them, Detroit-style, out the door?
Take every made thing – why is it sacred to you? It is an object, be it a book of fables and legends, or a chunk of wood, or a sparkly rock…how is it relevant? It is only made relevant by what you yourself have invested in it. It has no intrinsic value. You might as well hold the Brothers Grimm as prophets, or canonize J.R.R. Tolkien, or make offerings to an image of Carl Sagan. Any of these actions make as much sense as venerating the Christian bible and witnessing for Christ.
So, why do it? None of you proclaimers have one good reason to give your time or your money or your labour to organizations that, at best, imperfectly duplicate the work of state agencies and secular organizations. Abandon it. It does not serve you.
Love is not in a barn with a very pointy roof, it is not in a great hall, it is not with the pointy hat brigades, nor is it with the televangelist politicians. It exists nowhere if it does not exist within your own hearts. It doesn’t come from a book, or a building, or an organization. It comes from you and only you. Only you can add to its capacity, only you can take it away.
No beardy-man in the sky can love you like another human can, nor can he snatch away your ability to love one another. You do yourselves such great harm. You waste all your love on the promise of a greater life after you abandon the rest of humanity – when you can have the best possible one right now by embracing them.
It is possible to breathe through a pillow that’s being held down firmly enough to muffle but not firmly enough to asphyxiate.
OK…having read almost 200 comments … we all agree that something has to be done about bullying and suicides of teens. Arguing about semantics is actually what the Radical religious want us to do. While we argue terms they spread more hate. We need to Grow UP and stop worrying about how we say things and GET OFF OUR ASSES AN DO SOMETHING!! Congratulations to Dan for having the guts to get some attention to this problem.
@179, IHSN
Your question was, “Do you think we need to socially accept everyone?”
A: A qualified yes. As long as the person in question does not go out of their way to ridicule or do harm to others in public or behind their backs… yes! One might be attracted to thin people, but should invite the heavier to lunch or parties or social functions. One might prefer darker skinned mates, but should also be able to enjoy happy hour with the pale. One might have a large amount of wealth, but not be ashamed to go with a less-advantaged friend to a blue-collar bar. One might be athletic, but sit down and play chess with someone who had unfortunate experiences in dodge-ball. You should be able to converse with construction workers as easily as you do a Ph.D.
The question is, IHSN, would you invite overweight Canadian Jane to your party?
To address another of your points:
“Everyone makes social choices, kids will always bully, and the way to stop bullycide is to teach kids how to behave like decent human beings, not to teach them to love everyone equally.”
The two strategies that I see are:
1) Teach children, maybe not to love, but to RESPECT everyone equally, unless those in question are doing harm to others.
or
2) Have a mechanism in place to nail some little bastard to the wall if they EVER raise a hand to another child, or ridicule them in public because of some perceived difference. NAILED. TO. THE. DAMN. WALL.
Which do you think will be more effective in the long-run?
You take a kid who on one hand hears at home how gay are “unnatural” and gay marriage will crack the earth in two…and yeah, and then the parent may say, “child of mine, be nice to everyone.” What message will be carried to school to later be turned in to vicious action?
Geez, you will tell them not to drink or trade pills at school… guess what they do at school?
Teaching respect for others starts very, very early.
Umm… um… I have no personal attacks… can’t come up with any.
@199
Great Jeebus! You’re right! WE ALWAYS DO THIS!
*Facepalm*
IHSN– WE/You/I have work to do.
Kids are killing themselves.
OK after reading over 200 comments here … we need to agree on one thing. We need to do something about bullying and teen suicides. The comments here have done exactly what the anti-gay movement wants us do do. As always, we end up arguing semantics till everyone looses interest. THE ISSUE IS BULLYING AND SUICIDE. We need to get off our asses and DO SOMEHING NOW! It doesnt matter what you look like or think..what matters are KIDS DYING!
Congratulations to DAN for getting involved!