You can’t treat people as second-class citizens, as not deserving of the same rights as yourself, and then call for an end to violence to that group. It is in the mere prevention of these rights that you create a reason and environment for people to hate and persecute them.

I share Gordo’s curiosity. What would such behavior be?

I thank you for your input. I know the differences we have in this debate run deep, and it’s very unlikely we are going to change minds in this thread. For my part, I think I’ve given more than my fair share of time and effort in it, but I’m encouraged to see the level sophistication and sense of mutual respect displayed by commentators on this blog. This will have to be my last contribution to it for now, but I invite you to add any final remarks you may have on the matter, if you’d like.

Your calm response is refreshing (though I feel it to be egreegiously misplaced). I harbor no animosity towards anyone who is unable to be attracted to the opposite sex, and I’m perfectly willing to assess a person’s moral character purely on the basis of his conduct. And I fully agree that insofar as social policy is concerned, I could care less what two homosexuals do behind closed doors. What’s of concern on the larger scale is not any individual sexual predisposition. This should be evident from the fact that homosexuality itself has existed far longer than the current controversy.

I’m primarily interested in the logic employed to further social ends in public discourse, and from where I stand, it seems no one “side” of the debate is innocent of their share of mistakes; As this blog entry indicates, however, there are positive signs of maturation among conservative groups in the discussion. However, I have yet to witness what I consider to be necessary reforms in the thinking of some activist organizations on the other side of the divide: I see a generally short-sighted disregard for the philosophical considerations their social policies would have on the culture at large. It may not be immediately apparent to such groups that a wrong rationale can set dangerous precedents upon which more damaging outcomes can emerge in our culture, but foresight requires a willingness to focus our attention beyond the immediate.

Of course, it is always possible that some of our differences in some matters may lie in our basic value-systems, which may in-principle preclude any possibility of agreement on those matters–but I hold out hope that perhaps some of my listeners would likewise pause and reconsider.

Thanks for chiming in on the matter. My training is philosophy and social theory, and I would have to defer to your perspective on many of these issues. I’ve been reading a range of material, but I unfortunately don’t have the background to assess their overall worth. I wonder if I could e-mail you what those studies are and ask what your evaluation of them would be? It’s obvious, I do hold a viewpoint in the discussion; I simply want to be fair and well-informed.

Michael,

In Ken’s defense, he did not suggest any of the ideas you attribute to him in your remarks. They were stated in response to Gordo’s expressed skepticism against the idea that the general welfare of children is what’s in mind when conservatives weigh in on the issue. My response was intended to show that such speculation on intent often hinders, rather then helps, discussion on the issue. Sure, we can assume some general insincerity of conservatives concerning their “actual” concerns on the matter, but such speculation can easily move in the opposite direction. I don’t think it prudent to presume one can speak on the collective intent of all conservatives, any more than it is wise to do so with homosexuals. In short, a sweeping generalization on that score is probably more unhelpful to mutual understanding.

This does not preclude, of course, examination of individual cases, which I’m perfectly satisfied with.

Boo,

I proceeded with the understanding that racism is perpetuated by discrimination based on skin color; extraneous cultural associations run rather secondary (whether or not they are accurate generalizations), and emerge “after the fact” of one’s physical identification as a Black or Hispanic. The racist would seem to fault a person simply for being a racial minority. The same cannot be said about non-homophobic conservatives. The question in that case continues to be, “What are you going to do with it?”

But your point is well taken: not any behavioral pattern is acceptable criterion for concern. In this discussion, I don’t mean to highlight any behavioral patterns which are rather secondary to the basic fact of one’s homosexuality (whether it be styles of dress, mannerism, or sexually predatory acts). These, I consider to be cultural associations, and are not always true. Rather, I only refer to behavior which is rather essential to what it means to be “openly homosexual,” and that’s really the only behavior that’s relevant to the controversy.

Please, Daniel. Elaborate. To what essential openly homosexual behavior are you referring?

Warren, thank you for that first-person testimony.