I am behind on posting relevant news concerning the main characters in the Ugandan drama.
Here is an audio clip, you need to hear if you want to put Scott Lively’s opposition to the Ugandan bill in perspective.
Alan Colmes wondered how you could oppose the death penalty and call the bill “a step in the right direction.” About the show, Colmes wrote:
Scott Lively, one of three evangelicals who went to Uganda at in 2009 to preach against gays, says he doesn’t support Uganda’s bill that would punish homosexuality by life imprisonment or death. Nevertheless, he said, on my radio show Monday night, it’s “a step in the right direction.” He refused to say that gays should get jail time, but said it should be treated as a we treat those who smoke marijuana. Yet, he refused to back off his “step in the right direction” comment.
So what would be the next step, Mr. Lively?
137 thoughts on “Scott Lively: Anti-Homosexuality Bill is “step in the right direction””
I just saw this post – he’s been busy applying to graduate schools – he did not seem to care about responding tonight but I’ll see if I can get him interested in participating again 😉
Did Ryan have any other comments about the postings I had made?
It’s okay…we understand your addiction to the soap box. I was surprised at the several days of silence!
My apologies – I said I was going to get off this soapbox and I did not!
Believing is one thing, using those beliefs to tread on the rights of others is something else entirely. As long as the other party is not attempting to treat me as less than equal, then there is virtue in finding ways to coexist!
You and I definitely disagree on the sole source Michael. I think conservative religious views are definitely that.
I think it is an over-statement to claim that “the sole source of antigay sentiment is conservative Christianity”. ONE source, yes. SOLE source, no.
Usually, when our spouses and friends hurt us, it is done unintentionally – and regardless of why it is done, if the people love us, they don’t do it again!
Want to hold the belief that homosexuality is a sin? Have at it! Just don’t use your religious beliefs to deny me a civil right.
That is about as frank as it gets…Jayhuck, I really appreciate your participation here and I have sensed for some time (since the California reversal) that the tenor and tone has changed. I wish you well and hope you will stick around.
It is easier, when the pain is the worst, with our spouses and friends who have hurt us to demonize them…harder to accept how much it hurts and make decisions about the kind of contact we can tolerate.
Regardless of what you decide I have appreciated you and wish you and Ryan well.
Two words Eddy: Primary source
I’ll refrain from furthering this detour as well
Untrue generalizations and globalisms frustrate me immensely especially when they appear in ‘thoughtful discussion’.
Googling ‘Gays Against Gay Marriage’ produced interesting results. I think ‘what you find’ depends on ‘where you look’.
I promise I’ll restrain myself and won’t engage further in this detour.
Warren, thanks for your recent comments. Much appreciated.
I find it nearly impossible to coexist with people who would deny me equal rights – that is the real problem here. That conservative Christians want to believe that practicing homosexuality is sinful is one thing – to nearly force those beliefs on others through legislation however is another. Is it possible to coexist peacefully with people who exploit fear to further an agenda of inequality?
Peaceful co-existence is a good and noble goal, but I do not believe it can be achieved when a group of people is made to be inferior to the other.
Your list actually demonstrates what I want to oppose.
You have American Vision and the Chalcedon Foundation lumped in with Exodus; FRI with FRC, etc. These are linked by the fact that they all claim Christian as a worldview but they are very different groups.
Not fair to either part of that civil war.
THe problem is not to acknowledge that evangelicals believe homosexual behavior is not taught, it is to lump all groups together just because they share that belief.
I am kicking myself a bit for even getting into this because the real virtue is in finding ways to coexist not to keep bashing each other because we believe differently. We have been done this road a bunch, and I don’t see it getting us anywhere.
All of the major antigay power players today:
Alliance Defense Fund
American Family Association
Christian Action Network
Concerned Women for America
Coral Ridge Ministries/Center for Reclaiming America
Family Research Council
Family Research Institute*
Focus on the Family
Traditional Values Coalition
I mean please Warren – it doesn’t take a scientific study to show that most of the antigay sentiment today is generated by conservative Christians and groups they have formed for that purpose –
I do not believe that all conservative Christians are bad or mean-spirited or even, necessarily, anti-gay – that was never my intention – only to use common sense to show that conservative Christians drive the anti-gay campaign – that when it comes to antigay messages, they are the primary source. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the resistance, but wow.
Warren et al
Yes, but it is not just lively – I listed a small number of antigay groups – ALL of which have their roots in conservative Christianity – I do not know of any antigay groups in this country that do not have their roots in conservative Christianity – Lively is definitely on the extreme end of the spectrum but he is FAR from being the only conservative Christian that demonizes gay people – do I need to list ALL of the conservative Christian groups who campaign against gay people – would there be room on here?
I never meant to suggest that conservative Christians are the sole source of antigay sentiment in this country and others – only that they are the primary source today. They exploit what may be inherent fears and they lie – It saddens and angers me
This ranks up there with, no one has proven that homosexuality is not due to the classic family triad. Therefore, it must be true.
Can’t prove things like this. Provide a testable hypothesis and then provide evidence.
Enough, please. We have all been down this road several times before. Clearly Lively and people like him vilify gays in ways out of proportion to their religious beliefs. Others do not. After what I have been through, I could easily say that gays are the number one source of anti-religous bias in the culture. But that would be pointless. One because it is only my experience and two because such generalization obscure the exceptions. Let’s call it as it is: confirmation bias. I believe it so I see it where it is and where it isn’t.
Now you’re just gettting silly.
1) You are the one that made the unsupported generalized statement that slanders a great number of people. You are the one stating as fact something that is a conclusion based on your limited observation. That means that YOU’RE the one who needs to come up with evidence to support your generalized notion.
2) In trying to be pithy, you’ve dug yourself in a little deeper. You’ve now gone from saying that anti-gay sentiment is a result of most conservative Christians to saying that they are ‘the sole source’…of antigay sentiment. Wow! Not one other source? The world had no anti-gay sentiment prior to Christ? There was no anti-gay sentiment in Old Testament times? The ‘anti-gay sentiment’ expressed by Muslims is actually of Christian origin? Or perhaps you’re now going to say that ‘the sole source of modern anti-gay sentiment is conservative Christianity. Sorry, dude. You’d then have to explain why it is that conservative Christian sentiment gets mysteriously passed on from generation to generation while the other anti-gay sentiment got ‘magically converted’ into ‘conservative Christian inspired anti-gay sentiment’.
Now for the silly and childish part:
You see, your penchant for generalizing continues to cloud your logic. It’s not ‘conservative Christians’–that big faceless, nameless group–that is doing the denying here; it’s three people who are a part of that group. Now let’s rewrite your sentence to reflect what’s really gone on here?
“Why is it not surprising that Mary, David, and Eddy would try to deny that they are the primary source of antigay sentiment?”
LOL. WE are the ones denying it, aren’t we? Do you see anyone else jumping into this little debate with you?
I think your attempt at provoking was nothing more than silly.
Why is it not surprising that conservative Christians would try to deny that they are the primary source of antigay sentiment?
Oh, I’m sorry – LOL 🙂
I’m sorry Mary, they are the only ones people hear – if some conservative christians were to step up and deny these other groups, that would be wonderful – however, to date, the only conservative Christian voices I hear are antigay –
If someone can refute that these voices, be they Mormon, or conservative Evangelical, FOTF, Exodus, NOM, etc aren’t the source for antigay sentiment in this country, please provide your proofs 🙂
Um, as as of yet, no one, STILL, has provided any evidence that the sole source of antigay sentiment is not conservative Christianity. 🙂
And what percentage of conservative Christians are affiliated with Exodus? FOTF? NOM?
By what stretch of logic do you equate them or hold them as representative of ‘most conservative Christians’?
BTW: Even all of the many affiliates within Exodus aren’t represented by political statements that had been made by HQ.
Wondering whether a conclusion such as
Wondering further why a statement like
wouldn’t qualify as ‘inflammatory’, narrow-minded and dogmatic.
And, in response to that first quote, I think the ‘years of state recognized SSM in this country’ phrase is kinda cute in a misleading kind of way…not to mention that some of the most active and visible proponents of gay marriage are already married AND divorced. (Yes, I’m sure somehow it’s the fault of those bigoted conservative Christians.)
Antigay pavement pounders:
FOTF, Exodus, NOM……. the list goes on.
No one as yet has been able to show me a larger, more widely-known source for anti-gay sentiment than religious conservatives.
I’m not ignoring other factors, I’m merely talking about a primary source
Yeah – I’m tired of bigot, anti-gay and all the other name calling going on. Tired of the relentless self pity.
We are now supporting the original ill-founded generalization with overstatement and short sighted logic.
First we paint ‘ most conservative Christians’ as bigots; then we lay responsibility for most anti-gay sentiment at their feet…ignoring the fact that bigotry can have roots other than religious.
Now the support for this is those conservatives out there ‘pounding the payment’ spreading their lies and bigotry. It’s such a vivid picture that I’m sure I’d have remembered if I ever saw even one anti-gay pavement pounder in real life. Oh yeah, we have our nutjobs who make the news at rallies. (Why are they news? Because they are not the norm. What are their numbers? Far less than the congregation of even a single conservative church in a community.) But, anti-gay pavement pounders? Walking the streets of your neighborhood? Knocking on doors? Anyone? Anyone? I’m afraid that Jayhuck has taken these oddballs, who likely compromise less than 5% of conservative Christendom, and stamped their image on the masses. And Ryan agrees with him so ‘case closed’.
How is our system of sexuality “free?” What are the negative consequences we have today that we did not have in the past, or that haven’t existed throughout history? What are the possible good things that being less restrictive regarding sexuality have brought us?
In this day and age after years of state recognized SSM in this country, and even more wider recognition in other countries, the only reason to be concerned about a “broader definition of marriage” must be bigotry!
And yes, comparing to SSM to easy divorce and premarital sex is inflammatory and distracting – and serves little to further any kind of discussion about gay marriage.
Christians advocated against non-value based sex education; advocated against loosening the moral code around sexual behavior and now we have a system of sexuality which is free, but full of more negative consequences than we possibly could imagine.
Christians are not bigots for voicing concern about further loosening of this moral code.
I think that knife cuts both ways, Jayhuck…which is why I think the arguments have been reduced by gay advocates to “bigot” and “anti-gay”…it is a simplistic and effective way to marginalize people and control the conversation…kind of how primitive cultures stayed unified toward an enemy.
Whip it up, the name calling…it has worked for millenia.
I am your neighbor, trying to reason through what is best and I can live peaceably if the decision is not one I would prefer…if it is reasoned.
I think we are talking across each other, despite our efforts.
I am including this is a list, with your statement about interracial marriage. Your analogy only implies a bigoted motivation…there are many reasons to be concerned about a broader definition of marriage. It is not inflammatory or distracting.
I think I affirmed that we are talking about competing moralities here…did you not see this?
For the record, what conservative Christians are doing to loving gay couples and families IS immoral!
Ryan said he will respond to your other statements later!
You may very well be right here David, but conservative religious folk use this fear to further their agenda! Its sad really.
Interracial marriage is a much better example because it involves equal rights for loving, monogamous couples – you insistence on comparing same sex marriage to easy divorce and premarital sex while, familiar from the conservative Evangelical camp, is nothing more than inflammatory and distracting.
And, are there no disadvantages to difficult divorce and lack of premarital sex, because I’m pretty sure there are, and I’m certain those disadvantages are one reason the pendulum swung so far in the opposite direction regarding those issues – it was a response to those disadvantages.
But it is about bigotry David, and fear – only those who feel they way you do don’t see that. And whose morality are we talking about here? What gives Conservative Christians the right to deny a group of people equal rights based solely on their personal religious beliefs – that is astonishing and absurd. The same reasons that evangelicals use today to deny gay people the right to marry, are the ones used by conservatives to deny interracial marriages – I see little difference – your comparison of gay marriage to pre-marital sex and “easy divorce” not withstanding.
Those people out there pounding the pavement only do themselves a disservice in the long run – because they use lies and fear to spread a message of morality – God willing, in the end, everyone will see through their hypocrisy.
I’m pretty sure that ‘broad statement’ cited ‘conservative Christians’ rather than ‘religious conservatives’. I was musing this morning that it’s an awkward term also.
People often use the term when they actually do mean to include other religious conservatives. (Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc.)
The term ‘conservative Christian’ has one meaning to those who identify primarily with Christian culture and another to those evaluating political stances.
Before we continue: was I correct that you were referring to the Bonobo monkeys who are indiscriminately sexual when anxious?
I am not saying that people cannot have gay sex…have at it. I am trying to discuss what the ramifications would be for endorsing it as public policy. If gay sex makes one “happy,” if extra-marital sex make one “happy,” if premarital sex makes one “happy,” if masturbation makes one “happy” have at it…again it not about what is permissible it is about what is endorsed.
This is very interesting, because these seemed prevalent prior to the ascendancy of Christianity in the world. Christianity has emphasized only one, to the exclusion of all others…our attitudes about homosexuality are no different than our attitudes toward polygamy and polyandry. It is way too simplistic to call this bigotry or anti-gay.
Christianity is an equal opportunity oppressor of EVERYBODY when it comes to sexual behavior, and perhaps this has made our culture safer for women and children.
Please see my comments about survivability of unmonogomous women and their offspring from an evolutionary standpoint.
Involuntary social contracts…romantic love appears to have been around for a long time…are you saying this is only a recent event? For a long time parents made the marital decisions of their children…trying to find a worthy mate…to protect her and her offspring. Sometimes they picked very poorly. But we do the same in romantic love all the time now…sometimes over and over.
I wouldn’t argue for a genetic reason for the dislike…that would be overstating it. It may exist, and recent theory in environmental theory and genetic transmission may ultimately support this contention…but it is too early to say.
I do believe that emphasizing heterosexual pairing in primitive cultures was a matter of survival and may lie at the root of negative attitudes toward homosexual pairing today…
I believe the “fear of the other” which is prevalent in primitive cultures may form the foundation for “prejudice” in modern culture. In the first instance, this probably has survival value and was adaptive, they called their neighbors names, viewed them simplistically and forbid intermarriage. It doesn’t mean it is right, only that the root precedes religious thought.
Again, this is an explanation…but not a justification…addressed first to Jayhuck over a broad statement that religious conservatives are at the root of “anti-gay” (what a clumsy term) sentiment. I think that is way too simplistic.
Thanks for moving me to think and articulate more precisely Ryan.
We may have had this conversation before…if you want to use interracial marriage as an example (which is somewhat reasonable)…we should also include the consequences of easy divorce, and premarital sex…these values changed during the same period and have had largely negative consequences for our culture. These changes were thought, in public policy circles, to be improvements on pre-existing value systems…they were not. People with religious values were often used as straw men to react against to change public policy…much like now.
The evolutionary theory behind this is that if a man rapes a woman, he is less likely to care for her offspring, placing both the woman and the child in jeopardy. A woman who is unable to maintain her monogomy, is less likely to be protected by a partner during the vulnerable years of raising a small child. If a man loves a woman, and is loved by her, he cares for her and provides for her offspring, ensuring more children and survival of both their genetic code. Monogomous, loving pair bonding has the best chance of reproduction and for that offspring to reproduce.
I don’t think it takes a religion to come to this conclusion, I think it would become obvious within a few generations in primitive cultures.
This is what we do, about a lot of things, and have done so from the time of the early 2nd century in Rome, where we advocated against a passively endorsed government policy which allowed for the abandonment of female newborns. There are other examples…too long to list, some examples of which rightly fuel the gay rights movement (Martin Luther, MLK Jr., William Wilberforce…the list goes on).
It is not about bigotry…it is about morality…and whether morality serves a larger social good…and when we have competing moralities, how that might play out in the larger culture.
I notice we are back to the “anti-gay” term in your rhetoric.
Before my friend responds to your quote, I want to make it clear that I haven’t been talking about our society or any society having an alleged preference for heterosexual relationships – I’ve been talking about a source for very antigay attitudes and sentiments, which is something beyond a mere preference for a certain type of relationship. It is blatantly obvious that conservative interpretations of different scriptures are rife with antigay sentiments, and that these people/groups have been very effective at demonizing gay people – intentionally or not. The people/groups that are out there now pounding the pavement and warning people about the evils of gay marriage, who are spending millions of dollars in campaigns to scare people regarding the dire consequences of affording equal rights to gay people, are predominately religious conservatives! I don’t think we need a study to prove this is so and I don’t think its a scientifically narrow view to suggest that the primary, not necessarily sole, culprit for anti-gay sentiment is conservative religious views/interpretations of sacred texts.
Culture’s reluctance to endorse same sex relationships is probably the result of many things, not the least of which is the fact that it is different – not completely unlike interracial marriages of the not-so-distant past, which culture also, for a time, did not endorse, and which conservatives supported.
I am wondering – Is it true that monogamous pair bonding involves a desire on the part of the woman for her partner to be monogamous, not necessarily that she be? You are right that humans are NOT unique in their engagement of monogamous pair bonding!
From my boyfriend Ryan who may actually establish his own username one day 🙂 –
Since you mentioned that ‘evolutionary arguments’ predate religion, and considering that a the theory of evolution is only about 150 years old, it seems reasonable to assume that you were suggesting that there was evolutionary, and hence genetic, reason for the dislike of homosexual behavior.
I was unaware women didn’t commit adultery. Let us also consider the fact that most human ‘pair bondings,’ until ‘romantic love’ took precedence over economic considerations, were involuntary social contracts.
Your general sentiment is correct: the sexual behavior of humans is different than most species: we have language, culture, religion, and a whole litany of human-unique practices. The existence of these non-genetic yet inheritable factors make what is ‘natural’ for us infinitely complex. Polygamy, monogamy, and polyandry have all been observed. As has the celebration and condemnation of homosexual behavior.
“scientifically narrow view to place culture’s reluctance to endorse Same Sex relationships simply at the feet of Monotheistic religion”
Which culture? I never claimed monotheism as a sole culprit. On the ‘science,’ the fact remains this: Some people enjoy gay sex, some animals like gay sex, some people hate gay sex, some are ok with it. Which definitive scientific conclusions can you derive that would deny millions of people their happiness.
I think it would also be fair to say that, generally speaking, these people do not see monotheist religions as strong advocates or allies in their quest for gay rights.
Again, whether or not that feeling is deserved is another matter. I am sure there are many people of faith who do support gay rights — even if they themselves are not gay.
Jayhuck: I think that’s fair statement, except in my opinion, it would not be far off the mark to say “many”, even “most”. Whether or not monotheist religions deserve such animosity is another question.
Please accept my apology for:
It should have read:
I understand that for those who seek gay rights, some view their primary enemy as Monotheistic religions.
Some might call such a view simplistic.
I am not sure how exactly to respond… to someone else’s comment. Except to say, “Welcome.”
Lets see if we can run through his (or her) responses:
I didn’t say there was inherent dislike of homosexual behavior. I was trying to say that such values logically could have preceded the establishment of religion. The pork analogy is weak, as it also may be related to prereligious experiences, but became codified in religious practice (I think you make my point here) and then religious writing.
I think you are saying that the non-reproducing members of the group contribute to the protection and vitality of the group in other ways…correct? This may be the case…your example loses its generalizability with humans given monogamous pair bonding preference of women. This makes reproduction for humans different than for nearly (qualifier) all other species.
I am not sure whom you are referring to here, the Bonobo monkeys? If so, this is not social bonding per se, but soothing in the face of anxiety. It is also intergenerational. A better description is that it is indiscriminate. I am not sure that this is such an adaptive example for human sexuality.
I think there are reasons which precede the establishment of formal religious practice which can account our culture’s endorsement of heterosexual relationships to the exclusion of others.
I am not trying to say, in this post, that those reasons remain sufficient…but I am trying to say that it is a scientifically narrow view to place culture’s reluctance to endorse Same Sex relationships simply at the feet of Monotheistic religion.
At the risk of repeating myself – I agree, that IS true – Its not my point, but its true.
I think we need to separate some conservative Christians from their interpretation of the Bible and the way that message has been used to foster anti-gay sentiments.
Then those who are helping the Haitians would not be included in your list either?
Jayhuck, the point being that there are ALOT of conservative crhistians doing good works for people who have different belief systems than do they and you seem to have looked the world over and focused on the worst.
I never said anything about ALL conservative Christians – in fact, at least in one post above, I think maybe two, I made it clear that my arguments don’t pertain to ALL conservative Christians
Then making broad sweeping remarks about conservative christians might not be accurate?
Did you not see the post above where I said this was so?
I had a friend that wanted to respond to you, so I’m going to let him….the following, as it soon will become apparent, was not written by me 🙂
Given the varied existence of attitudes towards homosexual behavior, the idea that there is some inherent dislike of homosexual behavior seems unlikely. It would be like claiming that the monotheistic disdain for pork is tied into the genome.
What exactly is the evolutionary argument? There are lots of examples in nature of members of populations that do not directly reproduce. In fact their lack of reproduction is key to the survival of their group (their genes are passed on due to the fact that the group is formed from their relatives). Considering that some of our closest cousins engage in homosexual behavior as a form of social bonding, any natural law/evolutionary argument would fall flat on its face.
The following is from me:
That is patently false – I AM a Christian David! There are SOME homosexuals that dislike all forms of religion – some for the reason you described. There are heterosexuals, for that matter, that dislike all forms of religion. The enemy is those who, in a free society, would use their religion as a means of discriminating other people – using religion as a blank check to discriminate – hiding behind religion as it were. Instead of religion being a personal issue, it becomes a way of legislating your views.
So then conservative can be good people, too? Like Eddy and I?
If ALL I saw in Christianity were these things we’ve been discussing I might not be a follower either – thankfully these are not the only things I see
If all I saw in Christianity were the things that you see – I would not be a follower. There must be more.
It is difficult to find…as religion is quite old…but to emphasize: religion is “anti-” alot. I understand that for those who seek gay rights, they view their primary enemy as Christianity…
Warren and I may disagree about this…but the natural law argument precedes religion…as do many evolutionary arguments.
Furthermore, the vulnerability of small, tribal communities put conformity and reproduction at a very high value…it is likely, that anti-gay sentiment has its roots in such basic primitive drives to insure the survival of the tribe…
I believe the GLBT community asserts that gender variant native americans were esteemed, but I think this assertion has been weakened significantly in recent years (anyone?).
Religion is largely adaptive and functional…and it is true for many who decide to not identify with their SSA.
LOL! Branding most or all Christian conservatives as hypocrites! You rock!
The only “shifting” that is going on is in your head.
If you re-read some of my posts above I refer simply to religion, or some interpretations of it, as the biggest source for antigay sentiment – in this country and many others though, that source is Christianity – again, I’m talking about the conservative Christian interpretation of texts.
Many many many athletes are very religious – some media is strictly religious, I’m talking about the 700 Club type news here
Well, Eddy, I think we call this Hypocrisy! 😉
Ah, I now see that we’ve shifted from ‘most conservative Christians’ to the highly visible ‘power players’.
We’re conveniently ignoring the athletes and the media who regularly regard gays with ridicule as a matter of course; we’re ignoring my comments re most gay bashers not running out to bash after Bible study but rather after a night of sinning (usually drink or drugs with likely some fornication thrown in); we’re globally laying the responsibility for hatred of gays on conservative Christians ignoring the reality that conservative Christians often speak out more vocally about the evils of drink, drugs, gambling, and fornication…without considering what should be the obvious. Where’s the hatred of those who engage in those activities?
Please, what is that conservative Christian influence…that teaches people to hate gays while they tolerate or wink at these other sins? Have you analyzed the sound bites you’ve garnered by your extensive exposure to conservative Christians of all stripes to answer that question?
Further, how do you separate the conservative Christians from the other conservatives, religious (i.e. Muslims, Buddhists, etc.) who also hold homosexuality in disfavor? Do they simply hold it in disfavor while the Christians universally promote hatred?
When you can show me an older, larger and more widely known source for antigay sentiment than religion I will believe you – to date, you have not. It would be interesting to list all of the antigay power players out there and see just where they stand on the religion spectrum!!!
Oh wow – LOL – Jayhuck wonders whose “bias filter” is really at play here 🙂
One thing you are right about is that the three of us have been down “that road” before and it is fraught with deadly twisting and turning 🙂 Good night Eddy
And I understand what you were saying but I can see that it got jumbled up in Jayhuck’s bias filter. (He obviously heard things that you didn’t say…and trying to make him see that WILL NOT work…we’ve both been down that road before.) I don’t know that it’s worth pursuing though. Good night. I’m checking out for the evening.
I agree. Try as we might there are still some who think they deserve more understanding than others.
And it’s NEVER possible when you refuse to try or demand that the ‘other side’ take the first step.
But enough pithy wisdom. It’s a cinch there will be no bridges built nor foundations laid tonight.
Yes, I do. And I already stated where. As usual, you’re not really following. I’m not up for playing games. You can (and will) believe what you will. I can (and will) believe that you have a very strong bias that blinds you. Open minded readers will have to recognize that we both have strong opinions that differ and think it through for themselves.
Religion has and continues to be used as a reason to justify meanness, nastiness, and hurtful attitudes. I think your point is that religion is, at its heart, not meant to do such things, and that it is people who get the message wrong – I understand that – nevertheless…..
In an effort to return to topic…
THAT is an idea I can get behind, but sometimes that is not possible. I do however support any effort to do that. I think Warren suggested somewhere on the blog that we can all support preventing sexual abuse of children…
Oh my goodness!
I think you have missed a point here and have grown very bitter. Religion is being confused with people who can be mean, nasty, hurtful.
I don’t know of any more widely known source for anti-gay messages than religion, do you?
Oh, I’ve no doubt that your opinions are unshakeable…I just maintain that they are short-sighted and biased.
I know that sounds harsh but hey, when you can publicly conclude that someone who hasn’t been directly influenced by a group IS indeed influenced by a group…without showing any connection other than ‘the attitude floats through the air and lands on them somehow’. Sounds like a bias to me. All I’m saying is that I disagree and that’s just too much of a stretch. AND while we’re busily blaming it on the CC’s, we’re blind to the non-Christian, non-conservative media that may be the larger culprit.
But this is way off topic and doesn’t do diddly to end the oppression in Uganda. I’m sure the censors will be along momentarily.
And where did these people who haven’t ever set inside a church get those negative impressions of homosexuality Eddy? I would argue, and I think there would be plenty of evidence out there to back me up, that the majority of antigay sentiments that exist can be traced back to religion. I don’t know of any more widely known source for anti-gay messages, do you?
You don’t have to BE a religious conservative to have been affected by the incredibly anti-gay messages that some religious conservatives dole out. I don’t know anyone who holds anti-gay beliefs who is not a religious conservative – I’m sure they are out there, but I have not met them.
I wonder too. And we’ll all just keep right on wondering. Lively doesn’t blog here and those who do won’t discuss the question.
I used to think that more people read here than blogged here…and that sometimes they actually read here to learn from our discussions. Sadly, though, we’ve been reduced to one note here, hammered repeatedly on the piano. Warren does provide new information in his new threads but what follows hardly passes for open discussion.
I do not believe this for a second! I know it’s an extremely popular belief but, just like the one where they thought the world was flat…or another where they thought blacks were more animal than people…I believe it’s untrue. Saying that me, my neighbor and all of my friends think that it’s so isn’t enough for me. I’ve seen too many people who haven’t set foot inside in a church since Sunday School (if at all)…long before they ever started talking about sex of any kind…who believe and pass on those negative messages about homosexuality.
I know that Mary – In many ways, I would probably be considered a conservative. There are many types of conservatives; Social, Fiscal, Religious, A and C, all the above, etc….. My experience has been that the most vocal, powerful opponents of gay rights have been religious conservatives though. Their interpretation of the Bible gives them motivation to oppose gay people, and their message, intentional or not, is often that gay people deserve inequality and are somehow less worthy than others. This messages feeds irrational fears, can justify bigotry in some, and can even lead to verbal and physical abuse of gay people.
I know there are religious conservatives out there who are good, kind, understanding, compassionate – you, Eddy and Warren would be included in my list of such people – but you cannot ignore the fact that the negative messages we all hear about homosexuality are more often than not rooted in conservative Christianity.
Have they done that yet?
I any event, his marijuana idea didn’t seem to go down very well. I suspect that others, like me, are still reeling from his more nefarious comments. Like trying to hear a whisper after a cannon blast. Rwanda?
Can’t understand why he would suggest that we combat such a great evil, a real threat to human life, society and the family with such trivial punishments.
After all, he told Uganda that they should show “zero tolerance”. I wonder, with Warren, what would be the next step “in the right direction”?
No problem. Thanks for being you.
Thanks for explaining.
We talk about all kinds of things because Warren makes them into topics and actually includes those things in the topics.
Why are we talking about Lively’s inane suggestion about imposing penalties similar to marijuana smoking when the real issue is the nuclear bomb he feels so proud of? It’s like arguing about a pimple while Mount St. Helen’s is about to blow.
Why is it that asking questions always leads to presumptions or more questions?
ONE MORE TIME! I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE CRIMINALIZATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY! I AM, HOWEVER, IN FAVOR OF OPEN DISCUSSION THAT MIGHT HELP US TO UNDERSTAND THOSE WHO DON’T AGREE. IF WE DON’T TALK, WE ONLY JUDGE FROM OUR LIMITED AND USUALLY BIASED UNDERSTANDING. IF AND WHEN WE WIN, IT’S ONLY A MATTER OF NUMBERS. THEY STILL BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE…WILL STILL TRY TO PUSH FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE. WHY IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AN OPPOSING POINT OF VIEW SUCH A HASSLE HERE?
Lively made the marijuana statement and I was curious as to how it went down with other people. I made some observations about how the criminalization of marijuana works or is applied and then tried to engage conversation…see what the prevailing mindset is. (I personally believe that ‘recreational’ marijuana use will be decriminalized within the next 50 years. Possible restrictions (like alcohol) with respect to age and where you may legally it procure it.)
I also felt that, possibly, discussion on this level might move us all away from the canned answers that have been spouted continually since this discussion began. This looked like it might be a way of going there.
I also see that some proponents of the legalization of marijuana use similar arguments in its favor. I thought it would be interesting, from both perspectives, to consider the rationale of those arguments and see if they ‘cut the mustard’ or were lacking. If Uganda did reject the original bill but go for something seriously modified….then, next time around, we’d likely be wanting to learn from the successes and failures of the pro-marijuana folks.
Do you propose misdemeanor charges for people having premarital sex and extramarital sex?
Western societies are no longer pursuing car thieves…only trying to create recovery programs and use police resources for violent crime…
What is legal and what is moral are two different things…applying strict moral and then legal standards toward those with SSA necessitates a similar process for heterosexuals…
It isn’t like marijuana, I don’t think.
Are you changing, too? Just as many christians have been exploited and entangled in bad media as have gays. It would seem reasonable that there are also some conservatives who are truly gentle, kind, and patient.
You have to look for them, but we are there.
If I were to make assumptions about most or all gay people based on those I knew to be congregating in bars or marching in parades, I’d surely be admonished to recognize that those highly visible gays were not typical of all gays. I humbly submit that your categorization of ‘most conservatives’ based on those you’ve met is a similar circumstance. Just as I’ve likely encountered many gay people who I didn’t know were gay, I believe you’ve encountered many conservative Christians who you didn’t know were conservatives.
Even on this website, some time back, I was challenged about those gays who were secured happily in their homes with their partners who were more or less invisible to most. I maintain that there is a vast number of conservative Christians who are similarly invisible…secure in their homes and families, in their PTA meetings and shopping trips, and in their church…and they remain invisible to you. Invisibility works both ways.
My point went to discussions we had here on this blogsite…most specifically the young man who was murdered after he flirted with a class mate. Much of the dialogue centered on conservative Christian belief as the motivation and/or justification of the crime yet I couldn’t find anything that linked the perpetrators to being conservative Christians.
I don’t know anyone that has blamed conservatives for all hatred aimed at gays, but there is no denying that many SOCIAL conservatives and their SPEECH have had a negative sometimes detrimental impact on gay people. It was a conservative that spit in my face and called me fa@@ot, not a liberal/progressive when I was younger. While you may be the model of a compassionate conservative, most of the conservatives I have encountered in my life have not been compassionate, much less tolerant, when it comes to gay people – I do see that changing though,
I’m just curious – how do you separate the man from his beliefs?
LD, I understand and that’s a fair way to play. I expect more out of other so-called “christians”. I expect more of myself and am trying to develop even headedness.
At least there is in this case. I’ve been leaving it up to people like Warren. As an atheist, I have no voice with such people who would likely consider me inhuman and evil simply for my lack of belief.
Perhaps the problem is that I am not really a mature adult who understands plain English and possesses a normal attention span.
Developmental delays, alexia and ADD. Darn.
Still trying to think of the word for people who think gayness should be a crime. It escapes me. It’s my expressive aphasia.
Well, when you put it like this…
What is a man but that which is exemplified by his statements and beliefs?
But then exactly what vile/evil statements/beliefs are we talking about? Thus why I always had Lively in the backstreets of my mind.
You’re quite likely correct. Especially, when your English includes references to “the man” instead of ‘a man’ or ‘any man,’ and “his beliefs” rather than ‘their beliefs.’ Such language refocuses the point in one’s — or rather my mind back to Lively. Although I was speaking about anyone at one time.
I am still trying to think of a word for people who think homosexuality should be criminalized in any way. I stick to my descriptions of Lively.
Happy that he doesn’t think we should be killed or jailed for life. That’s a point in his favor, I suppose.
LD and MB,
We can narrowly divided ourselves from others when we attack them in the same manner with which they attack us. Lively makes horrible comments about gay people in a generalized way and then others make comments about how horrible Lively and his kind are. There must be another way to dialogue with those that while they do not chare all of our beliefs, they sharte some – like no death penalty for gays.
I made the distinction no less than three times and was most clear in making it in the following post. I WILL NOT repeat myself continually when I’ve already made myself quite clear. I shouldn’t have to if I’m dialoguing with mature adults possessing normal attention spans.
Never mind. Your bias filters are playing games with my english. I really don’t see the point in engaging further.
Well, Lively has always been in the backstreets of my mind, thus the title off the thread….
Lively and his views was what I was talking about. Sorry if I missed the point again. Bridges with people I don’t agree with? I do that often. Not always and not with everyone, but often.
Now I’m confused. I did not have trouble with your comments; you seemed to be answering not just as it would apply to Lively but as it would apply to anyone who held those beliefs. It was Michael’s reduction of it to Lively only that I was responding to. My bad if that was unclear.
Evidently in my case you have not labored enough. Sorry about that….
My comments were about building bridges with PEOPLE whose views differ markedly from ours…whose views we find distasteful. It wasn’t about building bridges with Lively…nor was it about building bridges with Christ.
Mary’s comment has value but it is not a summation of my point.
You seem to dismiss the dogmatism with which he holds his position.
I gave up on arguing or trying to reason with such people many years ago.
It’s not about Lively, it’s about Christ.
Please, I have labored to make it clear that I am speaking not of Lively but of those who may share the two viewpoints of the lead post.
And Lynn David,
we conservatives have been labelled right here on this website as akin to Nazis and we are regularly blamed for all hatred aimed at gays…for all bullying…for all murderous assaults…even when the perpetrators demonstrate no church connection whatsoever. If you don’t know how to talk to someone who says or thinks such reprehensible things about you, perhaps you can learn from our example. We’ve been victims of the reprehensible talk and yet we continue to dialogue.
Sorry. I have no interest in building a bridge to this man.
Don’t take the bait and use your restraint to rise above the riff raff and try again. If for example, Lynn David, you are not any of those things, you can remind readers and Lively that those labels do not apply to gays overall. And yes, you will have to say it many, many, MANY times – he may hear you. He may never hear you.
Of course, you’re right. We simply give up. We build bigger walls and deeper trenches. Why didn’t I think of that in the first place?
And yet, how do you have productive dialogue with a someone whose dogma completely precludes not only your position, but would so preclude the pursuit of happiness from your life? How do we have productive dialogue with people who have first labelled us akin to Nazis, the producers of genocide, child rapists, etc…?
Eddy: Thanks veryt much for catching the error. Bad eyesight. I meant to type “vicious”, not “viscious”.
No. Only if you endorsed the other things that Lively stands for. Suggesting that gays should been criminalized in some way (maybe like pot-heads) would just make you, well — since you don’t believe that — I am not sure what adjective would fit. Let me think about it.
I wouldn’t use “vile”, “digusting”, or “unconscionable”. Certainly not “inhuman” or “scum”. That would be “way too harsh” to borrow Lively’s recent remarks about this Bill.
That’s quite true. I was responding to another blogger who said two of those things when Michael, who up to that point, had only used the word ‘sickening’. Neither a ‘viscious(sic) adversary’ or myself used the word ‘scum’.
Lynn David wrote:
I’m personally not in favor of it. And you guessed wrong.
Would I or my opinions escalate to the level of vile, unconscionable or inhuman if I did? I’ve long trusted in dialogue as a means of bringing two opposing sides to some sort of resolve…I don’t envision productive dialogue when such labels or characterizations are applied or when the stickier points are danced around rather than addressed.
….two adult persons’ shared right to sexual expression.
It’s ok, Mary… I understand.
I’m sure it is one of the major purposes. Not only here in the US but elsewhere. I’ve seen it used against people.
Perhaps, however if you read the Ugandan constitution it has an interesting list of rights attributed to its people. Not the least of these is privacy, which one would think would include two adult person’s shared right to sexual expression.
What is your thought on criminalization or the an intrusion into the privacy of the shared sexual expression of your love with your wife/partner/lover? I guess you wouldn’t mind….
Truly sorry. My eyes have been going through some adjustments. Geez …. that’s embarassing. Again, I apologize for the misreading.
Mary…. that first word was Eddy’s and its “many” not Mary. Unless I’m missing something, I don’t understand your indignation. You have me scratching my head (and yes, I need a shampooing also).
BTW: I didn’t use the words, “inhuman”, “scum” or “beyond belief”. That must have been another “viscious adversary”.
Since Dr. T. is so critical of him, I wonder if that would include Warren?
You asked a question without answering mine so I’m going to ignore it as you’ve done with the question I’ve asked. I’m not suggesting that your question doesn’t deserve a thorough and thoughtful reply; I’m just asserting that mine does too…and it was posed first.
Re Warren’s quote:
The wisdom of that quote applies to ALL who make spurious comparisons to the Nazis…whether it’s ‘Christians’ or gay advocates. Please consider that greater wisdom the next time you’re tempted to play the Nazi card in other discussions on this blogsite. Neither the perceived victimization nor the level of perceived persecution can begin to compare.
I understand the various ways in which people can use laws to oppress and victimize others, however, I’m not sure that that can be called the purpose behind the law.
We are speaking into another country…a country that does not share our Constitution, our journey or many of our legal precedents. So I’m puzzled why it’s labeled inhuman and unconscionable for someone to suggest barely enforced misdemeanor status as opposed to lengthy prison or life. I certainly understand that others would disagree; it’s why their disagreement reaches the level of terms such as ‘vile’, ‘unconscionable’ and branding the opinion holder as ‘inhuman’…that’s what I’m trying to flesh out.
How do we separate a man’s views from the man?
Whoa! I did not climb aboard the bandwagon to support the other penalties – not at all. I said that having Uganda show some backing down from the death penalty was a GOOD start.
I’d say so. I lived in Texas for about 3 years in the late 70s and then in Oklahoma in the decade of the 80s. I was basically a possible felon there. If ever anyone wished to get rid of me at work, get me out of my apartment, that is, generally attempt to destroy my life, it would have been quite easy to do in Oklahoma. That is why sodomy laws exist, to calumnize people and provides a justification for any other form of discrimination, whether public or private, which are meant to injure gays and lesbians in various areas, including employment, housing, professional licensing, immigration or simply free speech. Which is exactly many in Uganda want to do.
Inhuman, in my cosmology, yes. Vile, well, if inhuman then certainly vile, if not evil. Unconscionable beyond belief, well, people like Hitler and Stalin had some thoughts. So hardly beyond belief.
I am sure there are some that do. I have heard from a few in my day.
Just a thought. Do you think others might think something similar about you but could not be farther from the truth – either?
If the shoe fits, wear it.
Richard and Eddy,
Thank you for the information. It seems that whilst some are arguing over whether or not Uganda goes far enough to meet their own belief system that their very own country still has biased. Isn’t it enough to persuade others that death is not a good answer. Let some time pass to ease into other solutions. The important idea is that gays should not be killed?
Regardless, I don’t like the other penalties either but this is a GOOD start.
Rich, 2003 is correct. While I was checking that out, I came across this interesting tidbit from a gay site that monitors sodomy laws worldwide.
This takes us back to the question I posed. The new poll occurred 4 years after the sodomy laws had been repealed yet there’s a sizable gap between 59 percent and 100 percent. Some of the remaining 41% might fall into the ‘no opinion’ category but it is likely that there are some who believe homosexual relations should be illegal on some level. Are they, like Lively, inhuman, vile, unconscionable, beyond belief?
Mary – The US sodomy laws were all abolished with the SCOTUS decision Lawrence vs Texas in 2003(?). There are still regions of the country that attempt to act as though sodomy laws are still valid, but cases are almost without exception dropped before they go to any court. Consensual sex between adults of any combination is legally recognized by SCOTUS and cannot be subtraverted by any state law.
I agree. I would think that in this climate people onboth sides would be VERY happy and willing to accept differences as well as similarities on the issue of Uganda’s Bill.
I’m curious – are there still sodomy laws on the books in any of the states? If so wouldn’t it be kind of serious to focus on those issues instead of Uganda’s possible compromise?
It’s not just the name-calling or boxing people up in labels; it’s the ‘my way or no way’ mentality. “If you don’t see it my way, you’re inhuman scum.’ Doesn’t really do much to foster open discussion.
With you on this Eddy. You know – one would think with all the hurt feelings from the name calling of the past , that we have moved and passed that kind of conduct. Really? Name calling? That does nothing to help communication and only serves to separate us and others from the call to serve.
Please, we haven’t embarked on a detour yet. While I appreciate the reaffirmation of the anti-Lively feelings, it avoids the direct question that was directly connected to comments that were directly connected to the main topic comments.
Is the inference that these people are also unconscionable…delusional…vile? Is the man vile or is it his statements/beliefs? If it’s the man rather than his statements, for clarity’s sake that ought to referenced in the comments. If it’s his beliefs that perhaps some misdemeanor level of offense should be considered, that point should be made clear on the facebook site. Many climbed aboard that bandwagon in response to the unthinkably severe penalites; it would be interesting to hear if there’s diversity of thought or opinion when it comes to the notions of lighter, misdemeanor type penalties. If thinking or speaking ‘perhaps’ in terms of marijuana-type penalties is vile or delusional, someone ought to tip them off that it is totally unacceptable to even consider such a notion and that they are totally unacceptable for doing so.
I am not sure what to call him. Unconscionable? Delusional? Vile? I am sure I could think of more.
According to the lead post, Lively said two things: that it’s a step in the right direction and that it should be treated like we treat those who smoke marijuana.
I realize that people will disagree with him but not sure that his beliefs warrant categorizing him as a ‘sad excuse for a human being’ or that his stance, knowing that he’s a religious conservative who believes homosexuality is unnatural, would merit a sincere ‘I cannot believe’ he said that.
For the benefit of those conservatives who strenuously object to life imprisonment or death but that may think that ‘misdemeanor’ status is appropriate, can you help them understand why that point of view is so unbelievable?
“Mr. Lively” is a sad excuse for a human being. Good grief!!! I cannot believe he actually said those things – Oh wait, yes I can!
As attorney, he should understand this:
Criminally Negligent. At least.
Sickening. What has this man been smoking?
Perhaps Mr. Lively has already hinted at his answer to ‘what’s the next step?’
People are allowed to speak out in favor of marijuana and to petition for repeal of anti-marijuana laws.
People can advocate for legalizing ‘medical marijuana’ and their advocacy is not considered a criminal offense.
You can’t be fined or imprisoned for saying you use marijuana or for associating with suspected marijuana users.
Thousands of people engage in marijuana use on a regular basis but are not penalized or imprisoned due to ‘lawful search’ restrictions.
Stores and shops can even sell pipes and paraphernalia but post signs saying ‘for tobacco use only’ and others advising customers not to speak of an intended illegal use while in the store.
Criminal penalties for marijuana possession or usage are fnes rather than incarceration.
Incarceration is reserved for those who possess large quantities indicating an attempt to sell.
There is a certain stigma attached to being busted as a dealer but little for being busted for possession or usage.
It was an interesting question and, I hunch, that if Mr. Lively were a blog contributor here, that this might reflect his answer. I say “hunch” and “might” because I’ve never met or dialogued with him.
Maybe he can land a gig with the Muppets.
Comments are closed.