While reading Family Scholar’s blog, I noticed Elizabeth’s quoting of a New York Times article. Here’s the complete text of Elizabeth’s post:
RACE AND SSM
In a new University of Chicago study:
Fifty-eight percent of blacks opposed legalizing same-sex marriage compared to 36 percent of Hispanics, and 35 percent of whites.
Elizabeth’s partial quoting of the paragraph from the news story obscures the striking correspondence between homophobia and opposing marriage equality. Here’s what the complete paragraph in the Times story says:
In addition 55 percent of blacks felt homosexual activity was always wrong compared to 36 percent of Hispanics and 35 percent for whites. Fifty-eight percent of blacks opposed legalizing same-sex marriage compared to 36 percent of Hispanics, and 35 percent of whites.
So in all three populations, according to this survey, the rates of homophobia and the rates of opposing equal marriage rights are virtually identical. Although I doubt Elizabeth left that out of her post on purpose, the strong popular connection between anti-gay bigotry and opposition to marriage equality is certainly a subject that she avoids discussing.
So why are blacks more likely to oppose SSM — and gay sex — than whites? I don’t know for sure, but I’d bet the fact that blacks attend church more than whites (I don’t know what the stats are for Latinas) has a lot to do with it.
I don’t think the religious aspect is the main reason. I believe that many black men strive to be pillars of strength for their families and for their communities. Also, there is alot of emphasis on how other people perceive you. They want to be seen as a “strong black man”. Unfortunately, due to stereotypes, homosexuality is not something that many people equate with strength.
Since we’re going for clarity, thinking homosexual activity is “wrong” is not the same as “homophobia.” The difference here is, yes, probably due to religious beliefs, but that doesn’t mean people holding those views would endorse harassment, violence, or job or housing discrimination against GLBT people. (I’m thinking a Tammy Faye-style hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner deal, here.) It doesn’t help to enflame the conversation by assigning levels of hatred or pathology to people just because they hold different religious beliefs than you do.
As a white who is married into a Mexican family, I can state that the connection between beliefs and religious affiliation is completely different from the way whiet and black Americans see things. I absolutely DO believe that the connection between going to church and homophobia/opposing gay marriage is the primary consideration for American whites and blacks. We view religion in free market terms. If we prefer the teachings of a different church, we go there. If we do not like the teachings of any church, we do not go to any. Latinos cannot be use to dispute this, because they view religion completely differently. Yes, virtually all Mexicans are Catholic and believe in God, Jesus, the Virgin of Guadalupe, and saying the rosary. And almost no Mexican I know trusts the Pope or Priests. They usually seem to hold Nuns in a BIT higher regard, but none seem to beleive any of these people know more about morality than they do themselves. Mexicans aparently believe that they can view the Pope with the same esteem that I view George W. Bush and still be a good Catholic the same way that I can still be a patriotic American.
Do not ask me to explain this, I am just reporting what I have seen.
Conversations like this about the racial nature of homophobia always make me nervous, because they often turn into a whole lot of white or other not Black folks hypothesizing about what makes Black folks tick. And that’s never a fun path to go down.
Not that such phenomena should be ignored; I just think it’s a lot more productive and a lot less prone to awfulness for communities of color to talk internally about how to deal with their community’s homophobia.
I also think that it’s important to note that, while these statistics may be true, the politicians and legislators who actually wield the most clout in determining what rights queer folks do or do not get are, for the most part, a bunch of white men. So maybe, statistically, a larger percentage of Black folks believe homosexuality is wrong and are against queer marriage, but that smaller white percentage probably has a lot more power to doing anything about it, at least on a legislative level.
Pingback: The Opine Editorials
I feel that religion plays a huge role in this, and at the same time I also feel there is an issue masculinity with black men. Also, I read a statistic somewhere stating that more blacks were attending Pentecostal churchs, which in my opinion, I believe is almost close to fundementalism. I think that’s part of the reason why alot of black people believe that homosexuality is wrong.
So why are blacks more likely to oppose SSM — and gay sex — than whites? I don’t know for sure, but I’d bet the fact that blacks attend church more than whites (I don’t know what the stats are for Latinas) has a lot to do with it.
Let’s not go too far down the road of religious indoctrination. Correlation is not causation. I’d bet that there is a common factor that causes both opposition to SSM and gay sex and an encouragement to church membership.
Since we’re going for clarity, thinking homosexual activity is “wrong” is not the same as “homophobia.”
Quite true.
At least two semi-hidden factors are involved here.
First, class differences matter a lot on this subject. I would expect the differences to be much smaller if comparing whites and blacks of the same education and wealth level.
Second, culture differences matter a lot. The swaggering, strutting, “respect”-based cultures of poor Southern whites and blacks tend to be pretty hostile to (male) homosexuality.
A random observation–it’s been my observation and (lesbian) friends’ experience that prejudice against gay men in the black community is much greater than against lesbians.
And I second Kell and RonF–opposition to homosexuality on moral grounds and homophobia are quite different phenomena.
While I’d agree that this is a useful and necessary conversation, I think that it’s dangerous to tell folks who are facing discrimination that it’s not their place to discuss that discrimination.
Is honestly believing that black folks are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent ‘racism’? I’ve always thought it to be so, whether or not the person holding that belief endorses overt discrimination.
—Myca
I’d say it depends on what the person does with that belief.
In the case of “Homosexuality is wrong”, Christians fall into two broad categories. On the one hand are those Christians who feel sin is sin — there are no degrees of sin, so same-sex relations are on the same level as every other sin, and since everyone is a sinner anyway, lesbians and gays are just like everyone else. On the other hand are Christians who believe that there is something so unique about homosexuality that it cannot be overlooked, even though they might believe that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of G-d”.
“Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to insinuate bigotry.” (Wikipedia)
Now, everyone’s free to think what they will about other people. But if you think that homosexual activity is wrong, you are homophobic. That’s simply what the definition says.
I often hear people compare the struggles of black people during the Civil Rights Movement with the current struggle for gay rights. Others say that that is a bad comparison, and I wonder whether the alleged 53% of black people who oppose gay marriage fall within that group.
Historically and psychologically, poor people tend to be more everything-phobic than rich people. Did they, by any chance, bother to income-match the study participants?
By the way, this was a national survey of 18 – 25 year-olds, so it appears to be dramatically good news for the future. Current battles are important, but in the long run the anti-gay forces are just doomed by demographics.
Er, what’s happening to my comments? Tried to comment here and in two other threads, and I believe something got stuck up the queue.
I think that’s true, more because of party identification issues than for the reasons you state here. Most black voters, no matter what their opinion on gay rights issues, are still going to vote for Democrats – which means that they’re voting for the party of less anti-gay discrimination. (I’m not saying the Democrats aren’t often awful, just that the Republicans are consistently worse.) For the most part, legislators who originate and push anti-gay legislation are Republicans; and Republicans know that they get a lot further by appealing to whites than black.
Via On Lawn’s link above, I read this interesting article by a black, liberal, Christian woman, about confronting her own internalized homophobia. From the article:
This is purely anecdotal, but here in Toronto, a lot of the (fellow) black people I’ve talked to about homosexuality see it as a white phenomenon. Even though they know that there are gay blacks – even when they know some personally – they still often equate queerness with whiteness and white culture. For people who see homosexuality that way, gay blacks present a serious challenge to their conception of what it means to be black. I don’t know if this is a common attitude throughout Canada or the US, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was, or if it was at least a small part of why disapproval of homosexuality is so high among black people.
I had such a sense of recognition when I watched the movie Bend It Like Beckham, because there’s a scene where one of the characters comes out to his best friend, and she responds with, “But you’re Indian!”
Echoing earlier thoughts, I think a lot of it has to do with the need for a lot of black guys to be “strong” and of course the general association with homosexuality being weak. And, really, it’s understandable, given that blacks have had to fight tooth and nail for their rights in this country and that sort of environment is of course going to result in people who have to be strong no matter what. When society today still has lingering examples of racism right and left, allying yourself with something else that’s socially unacceptable isn’t going to seem like an attractive option. I think the difference between blacks and Hispanics is probably a matter partially of the fact that the Hispanic population has never had to deal with (to my knowledge) years of legislation aimed directly at taking away their rights. They’ve been discriminated against, sure, but never in such a wide-spread, organized, and institutionalized way. So it would make sense that they have, perhaps, less of a knee-jerk defensive reaction. Of course, these are the completely anecdotal observations of a middle-class white girl with a woeful lack of sociology training, but hey, if I don’t say anything, no one can correct me.
“Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to insinuate bigotry.” (Wikipedia)
Now, everyone’s free to think what they will about other people. But if you think that homosexual activity is wrong, you are homophobic. That’s simply what the definition says.
No, that’s what whoever wrote the article for Wikipedia thinks. Wikipedia can be a handy reference, but the articles in it don’t exactly get the review and scrutiny that something like the entries in the Encyclopedia Britannica or the Merriam-Webster dictionary do.
Every other word that uses “-phobia” as a root or modifier signifies some kind of irrational fear. The invention and promotion of the word “homophobia” is an attempt to plant a meme in the mind of the general public that dissaproval of homosexual behavior is both irrational and based on fear, regardless of the actual facts. I’m perfectly willing to use the word in some contexts, as when discussing what happened to Matthew Shepard (to use an extreme example). But to use it when people talk about any dissaproval of homosexual behavior at all is just wrong.
Hm. Maybe I should just log into Wikipedia and change the definition.
By the way, this was a national survey of 18 – 25 year-olds, so it appears to be dramatically good news for the future. Current battles are important, but in the long run the anti-gay forces are just doomed by demographics.
Keep holding on to that thought. But remember as well that people tend to change their minds about a lot of things that they thought were a good idea back when they were 18 and 25. I think it was Winston Churchill that said something along the lines of “If a man isn’t a Liberal when he’s 25 he has no heart, but if he’s not a Conservative when he’s 50 he has not brains.” The terms meant something differen then than they do now, but the basic principle holds. Mark Twain had something to say about it too. I once again search a failing memory, but his was more along the line of “when I was 20 I thought my father to be a complete idiot, but when I was 30 I was amazed at how much he had learned.”
On the one hand are those Christians who feel sin is sin — there are no degrees of sin, so same-sex relations are on the same level as every other sin, and since everyone is a sinner anyway, lesbians and gays are just like everyone else. On the other hand are Christians who believe that there is something so unique about homosexuality that it cannot be overlooked, even though they might believe that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of G-d”.
I see it differently. There are some Christians who think that God loves us all and that we should all love each other unconditionally, and accept each other as we are, and that this overrides everything else. There are other Christians who believe that while God understands we are all sinners, what He wants us to do is recognize our sins, repent of them, and do our best (within our human limits) to stop sinning, and that our salvation depends on this. We should love each other, but that love means that we help each other deal with our sins, not ignore or affirm them.
The real problem that Christians have with homosexual behavior is not that people who engage in it are sinners; it’s that it’s proponents don’t recognize it as sinful and in fact promote it as not only not sinful, but as the equal of heterosexual relationships. It’s the promotion of sinful activity as not sinful that is the crux of the matter.
The key story for me in that is the one where the crowd was getting ready to stone an adultress to death. Jesus stepped forward, defying convention, and challenged everyone there to look into their own hearts and see their own sins. Killing that woman for her sins when they themselves were all sinners was wrong. So they all dropped their stones and went away. But then comes the key; Jesus tells the woman, “Go and sin no more.” He didn’t tell the crowd that adultery was O.K. and was not sinful. And he told her that what she had done was sinful and that she needed to stop. “Hate the sin, but love the sinner” is part of the lesson here. Human nature is such that people often transfer their feelings about a sin to the person who committs it. But this Christianity thing isn’t meant to be easy; it is supposed to transform us, not to keep us as we are.
Ron., think back to the 1950s: Do you think 60% of youths were in favor of legal recognition of same-sex marriage back then? How about in the 60s, or 80s?
Clearly, there has been increasing acceptance of queers over the past few decades. This suggests that real changes have been happening; it’s not true that younger generations inevitably grow up to be as bigoted as their parents and grandparents.
Ron wrote:
No, that’s not true; sometimes it’s used to indicate bigotry, such as the word “transphobia” and the word “fatophobe.”
It is true that most of the “phobia” words indicate some sort of irrational fear. But that’s because those words are medical terminology; “homophobia,” in contrast, is not a medical term. There is no such thing as “clinical homophobia,” for instance.
In the English language, etymology doesn’t dictate meaning; instead, meanings are determined by usage. Do you seriously claim that people nowadays aren’t commonly using “homophobia” to refer to a wide variety of forms of anti-gay bigotry?
That sounds a little paranoid. In fact, the word “homophobia” was invented in 1972 in the book Society and the Healthy Homosexual, written by psychologist George Weinberg. Dr. Weinberg intended the word the same way you’re saying it should be used now; to refer to people who are driven to violence against homosexuals by fear of homosexuality.
But over the years, people needed a word for prejudice against homosexuals that would parallel “racism” and “sexism.” For whatever reason, “homophobia” ended up filling that slot in the collective dictionary, and that’s how a huge number of English speakers use the word today. It’s unfair to pretend that most speakers are using it to refer to a literal “phobia” or fear when it’s pretty obvious that this isn’t how the word is always used.
* * *
I’d argue that all disapproval of homosexual behavior in and of itself is irrational, and should thus be considered bigotry. Gay sex does no harm that straight sex doesn’t also do; there is no rational harm-based reason to disapprove of gay sex and not straight sex. Since rational reasons for disapproval of gay sex don’t exist, the reasons people disapprove of it must be irrational prejudice.
“Keep holding on to that thought. But remember as well that people tend to change their minds about a lot of things that they thought were a good idea back when they were 18 and 25. I think it was Winston Churchill that said something along the lines of “If a man isn’t a Liberal when he’s 25 he has no heart, but if he’s not a Conservative when he’s 50 he has not brains.” The terms meant something differen then than they do now, but the basic principle holds. Mark Twain had something to say about it too. I once again search a failing memory, but his was more along the line of “when I was 20 I thought my father to be a complete idiot, but when I was 30 I was amazed at how much he had learned.” ”
Mark Twain also said something about what is liberal and revolutionary today being conservative and reactionary tomorrow, which would be impossible if the generations ran an immobile liberal-to-conservative treadmill. People become less adventurous and more set in their ways as they get older, but the ways in which they get set are different than those their own parents set into thirty years before.
Just to point out the obvious.
“There are other Christians who believe that while God understands we are all sinners, what He wants us to do is recognize our sins, repent of them, and do our best (within our human limits) to stop sinning, and that our salvation depends on this.”
There was no such thing as a sucky gate called the ‘the needle’ through which merchants had to pass, as the archaeological record shows. What Jesus said about the Camelus dromedarius and sewing implements is exactly what it sounds like he meant. When Christians repent of that, then maybe gay citizens will oblige kindly with a ‘one gay-bash free’ card, redeemable at your local megachurch.
I’d argue that all disapproval of homosexual behavior in and of itself is irrational, and should thus be considered bigotry. Gay sex does no harm that straight sex doesn’t also do; there is no rational harm-based reason to disapprove of gay sex and not straight sex. Since rational reasons for disapproval of gay sex don’t exist, the reasons people disapprove of it must be irrational prejudice.
This is a rather strong set of statements.
What proof do you have that gay sex does no harm? I can think of one form of “harm” (broadly construed, which seems to be your intention) which seems indisputable: gay sex creates homosocial bonding that causes men to eschew or de-emphasize relationships with women, or women themselves. Cf. ancient Greece.
You are also asserting a rational primacy that I, and I think most people, are uncomfortable with. There are non-rational values which are nonetheless valid and legitimate values. There are also non-rational values about which people reason correctly. My preference for Coke over Pepsi has no rational basis, but I correctly and rationally acquire and consume soda pop in the world, and successfully integrate my soda habits into my shopping routine, using reason. Nor am I an anti-Pepsi bigot for preferring Coke; it’s simply a preference.
The Biblical condemnation of homosexual behavior is largely echoed by the major faith traditions of the world. It is not irrational to assign the moral tradition of a culture some intrinsic value on the assumption that cultural evolution functions, and that a rule which appears everywhere may have some rational basis – even if we cannot articulate what that basis is.
I think your position is rather arrogant. You cannot think up a reason that homosexuality is bad without resorting to bigotry; that doesn’t prove anything about homosexuality, it just proves something about your own intellectual limitations. (Not intending that as a slam, everyone has the same limitations.)
Yup. This isn’t an issue I feel much uncertainty on.
It’s not logically possible to prove a negative, Robert. The burden of proof is on the people who believe that gay sex intrinsically does more harm than straight sex.
I’ve heard this theory before, but far from “indisputable,” it’s utter garbage. It’s a false stereotype to believe that gay men don’t form bonds with women. Yes, there are some misogynistic gay men who basically only form friendships with men; but there are also some straight men like that. (Even married straight men — there are some who have no respect for their wives). If anything, the dating/marriage/divorce scene seems to make some bitter straight guys more misogynistic — look at the men who become bitter misogynists after they go through nasty divorces.
Fortunately, those men don’t represent all straight men. Most men, regardless of sexual orientation, are quite capable of bonding with women without having sex with them.
Of course it does. At some level, you acquire more pleasure from drinking a Coke than a Pepsi. Maybe you like the taste better; maybe it’s the packaging; maybe it’s subconscious associations from infancy, when your mom bounced you in her lap with one arm while drinking a can of Coke with the other. Who knows?
It doesn’t matter. We don’t have to know why you enjoy Coke more; that you do acquire more pleasure from drinking Coke than Pepsi makes it rational for you to choose Coke, all else held equal.
What would be irrational would be if I said that your Coke preference alone, based on no demonstrable real-world harm, is inferior to a Pepsi preference.
And if we lived in a world in which Coke drinkers were taught to hate themselves for their preference, were discriminated against in the law, were sometimes beaten in the streets by those who hate Coke drinkers, and so forth, then it would be worse than irrational for me to express my opinion that Coke-drinking is intrinsically inferior to Pepsi-drinking. It would be lending my support to a pattern of bigotry and harm against Coke drinkers.
By this logic, antisemitism was a rational position to take 80 years ago. I think that was nonsense then, and it’s nonsense now. Especially when the belief that homosexuality is intrinsically wrong is an essential lynchpin in a system of bigotry that does significant, real harm to real people, it’s important that those who advocate those harms — or who defend the system that makes those harms inevitable — be made to articulate defenses for their stated beliefs.
Besides, it’s simply not true, in our culture, that homosexual inferiority is “a rule which appears everywhere.” If the rule appeared everywhere, there wouldn’t be a controversy.
Cultural evolution didn’t stop fifty years ago; it’s still going on today. In our country, there are many churches and synagogues (possibly a majority of the synagogues) which have accepted same-sex couples as fully equal members; your view can no longer claim universality. Furthermore, there’s also a significant degree of acceptance of homosexuality in our culture’s other sources of wisdom, such as the universities and the arts.
Robert, I respect you. But I can’t respect this argument.
Obviously, your argument here is an ad hom argument. But what’s really astounding about it is that it’s so entirely lacking content, it could be used to rebut any position: “You cannot think of a reason that [position X] is [true/false]; that doesn’t prove anything about [position X], it just shows your intellectual limitations.”
Frankly, the world-class weakness of your argument lends credence to my argument that there is no rational argument against homosexuality.
Do I think it’s possible that I’m wrong? Of course it’s possible; it’s always possible to be mistaken. But that’s the case with every position I take, and also with every position anyone else takes. Judging from the evidence I’ve seen, and from the astonishing weakness of the counter-arguments I’ve seen from your side, I’m convinced it’s much less likely I’m wrong about homosexuality than it is I’m wrong about most other issues.
Maybe so, maybe so.
We’ll see in a hundred years.
I think one of the points for me is that no your religion doesn’t give you an ‘out’ on homophobia. When religions taught that black folks were the children of Cain, it didn’t give an out on racism, when they taught that the Jews killed Christ, it didn’t give an out on antisemitism, and when they teach that women ought to be subservient to men, that doesn’t give an out on sexism.
Own your own freaking beliefs. If you believe things that are repellent, that’s you choosing to believe that. Nobody else.
Homophobes do have an argument that seems vaguely reasonable if you ignore all the known costs of punishing deviants in the prescribed way and all possible benefits of letting them live in peace. (See here for more on the costs.) But those who know openly gay people tend more and more to place the burden of proof on those who argue that society would benefit by treating our friends as fitting subjects for what Brad calls human sacrifice. And the anti-gay side has no proof. It has no valid evidence at all. For this reason, RonF, and because of a larger trend that started with Copernicus, I think the anti-gay side lost the war as soon as they (officially) agreed that we shouldn’t use violence to keep gays in the closet. Presumably this explains Man-on-Dog’s endorsement of state violence and official hypocrisy. As with the “Necronomicon of Porn” (or Copernicus for that matter) you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. You can only try creating a morality that’ll survive the harsh light of exposure.
I have a hyposthesis regarding the hyperhomophobia in the black community. What you’re seeing is that the people near the bottom of the totem pole feel more of an imperative to assert their social superiority than the people at the top, for whom superiority is a given. Since homophobia is, in the estimation of some, merely an extension of misogyny (only thing worse than a nigger is a nigger lover; only thing worse than a woman is a fag), it makes sense that hatred of women would be extended to gays. Black men, being the penultimate (I would argue) losers on the totem pole, scramble much harder to assert their superiority over black women (who are at the very bottom) and by extension, black gay men. It’s sort of the way that poor white trash could be counted on to carry their racism much further than richer whites, both before the Civil Rights Era and now. And while education (which someone mentioned) may have something to do with it, I think the effect is more that the education puts people in a position not to feel threatened by their immediate social inferiors, rather than actually teaching people not to be bigots.
And that’s why straight men have historically treated women as property, denied them education, denied them the vote, ghettoized women into the nursery and the kitchen, have created men-only clubs, etc.?
Robert, at 15% of the population, gay men hardly have a strong hold on the marginalization of women from their lives. Afterall, they’re not the one’s creating the phenomenom of the “football wife.”
Oh, Robert. When you have to resort to ‘I can’t prove it now but in a hundred years they’ll be sorry!’ you’ve truly lost the argument.
Oh, Robert. When you have to resort to ‘I can’t prove it now but in a hundred years they’ll be sorry!’ you’ve truly lost the argument.
Perhaps so. Of course, the argument is by definition taking place on a small patch of ground in a much larger arena. I can’t prove to a materialist, using materialist arguments, that one particular aspect of the materialist project is a bad idea. For that, we need empirical experience – thus, we’ll have to wait and see.
I’m a little late coming back to this, but Myca wrote:
I think that it’s dangerous to tell folks who are facing discrimination that it’s not their place to discuss that discrimination.
Well, as someone who faces discrimination for being both a person of color and a queer person, I maintain that a conversation that involves white or non-Black people speculating about why Black people, specifically, are “more homophobic” than whites is bound to be riddled with some dodgy, even racist, assumptions. I don’t think anyone should be barred from discussing discrimination against them; I just think that it’s important to pay attention to how power and privilege enter the conversation in complex, multifaceted ways when you have, say, white queer people making speculations about straight Black people.
I’d agree, especially with the statement that this is a complex issue, but . . . look, would you be cool with a bunch of white queer people spewing racist statements, then turning around and explaining that straight black folks shouldn’t discuss their racism, because they’ll just end up saying homophobic things?
Myca, your analogy implies Jack said something she never said.
Jack did not say that she’d be “cool with a bunch of [straight black] people spewing [homophobic] statements, then turning around and explaining that [queer white] folks shouldn’t discuss their [homophobia], because they’ll just end up saying [racist] things.” Since she never said, or even implied, such a statement, your question to her seems unfair at best.
What she DID say is that “it’s important to pay attention to how power and privilege enter the conversation in complex, multifaceted ways when you have, say, white queer people making speculations about straight Black people.” And I’m pretty sure, from what I’ve read of her writings, that she’d also agree that “it’s important to pay attention to how power and privilege enter the conversation in complex, multifaceted ways when you have, say, [black straight] people making speculations about [queer white] people.”
Edited to add: As might be obvious, I agree with Jack (and I suspect you mostly agree with Jack, too). I think it needs to be discussed: and I’m feeling uneasy about having brought the matter up at all, since the resulting conversation is full of speculation, some of which is very uninformed. It doesn’t help that I didn’t even bring it up to discuss homophobia in the black community, really; I just wanted to illustrate how the “marriage movement” folks ignore the elephant named “homophobia” sitting in their living room.
Ah, okay, I see that I responded to something that was not intended.
I apologize for my misreading and subsequent response, and I believe that Jack and I are in agreement, pretty much.
When you have group X responding to the bigotry of group Y, you need to be very careful, because it’s possible (or even likely) that group X will say bigoted things about group Y in the process. Am I sort of getting it?
Yup, Amp, you’re reading me pretty well there. And yup, Myca – you’re seeing more of my point. :-)
Going beyond what Amp wrote – I think the key thing here for me is the racial power dynamic going on when/if white people begin discussing why Black straight people, not just straight people in general, are homophobic. The conversation shifts from a discussion about straight people discriminating against queer people to one about Blackness itself, and whenever you’ve got white folks making assumptions, speculations, and pronouncements about Black people, you’re almost guaranteed to get some racism seeping in there, whether overt or subtle.
Myca, you put forth the idea of Black straight folks discussing the racism of white queer people. I think there are major differences between sexuality and race, in terms of how power and privilege play themselves out, so I don’t think an exact and accurate comparison can be made to the situation above. But similarly, if Black straight folks started discussing white racism specifically in relation to queerness – asking the question, “Why are those white gays so racist?” – then there’s a strong likelihood that some homophobic sentiments would seep in. It might be more productive to focus on white racism in general (and there’s just so much material there!), rather than singling out a minority within that larger group.
Very different, of course, is the case of queer people of color calling out the white queer community, specifically, for the racism therein. See the difference in the power dynamic there?
All right, at this point I don’t know if I’m rambling pointlessly or making useful expansions upon my original point, so I’ll stop there. :-)
No, no, you’re making really really interesting points. IMHO, at least.
And thank you.
—Myca
No, that’s not true; sometimes it’s used to indicate bigotry, such as the word “transphobia” and the word “fatophobe.”
I’ve never heard either term, so I’m afraid the examples are lost on me.
In the English language, etymology doesn’t dictate meaning; instead, meanings are determined by usage. Do you seriously claim that people nowadays aren’t commonly using “homophobia” to refer to a wide variety of forms of anti-gay bigotry?
My point is that people are taking a term with an agreed-upon meaning and are using it to try to change the viewpoint of what other people are saying. Yes, homophobia is being used to refer to anti-gay bigotry. But it’s also being used to refer to other things as well in an attempt to make anything that’s even mildly dissaproving of homosexual behavior to look like anti-gay bigotry or worse.
For whatever reason, “homophobia” ended up filling that slot in the collective dictionary,
And I suspect that “whatever reason” was in fact a very specific one; an attempt to steer the collective meme so that any dissaproval of homosexual behavior would be conflated with stringing Matthew Shepard up on the barbed wire fence, so as to cut off debate on the matter.
By this logic, antisemitism was a rational position to take 80 years ago.
No. Antisemitism is a position that is not called for in the Bible, although there are those who cherry-picked specific verses and then twisted their intended meanings to support their viewpoint. Whereas disapproval of homosexual behavior is in fact pretty specific in it.
The interesting thing is that if you read through the story of Passion Week, what you see is that the vast majority of Jews loved Jesus; it was only a few of the ones that had been co-opted by the Roman power structure that wanted him dead (whether to either preserve their power structure or to keep the Romans from viewing him as a revolutionary leader and going after the whole community is a good debate). To say that the Bible shows that the Jews hated Jesus and killed him is a pretty blatant misreading of the text, but it was successful because people already hated them and just needed some justification (which for a long time was easy because few people had both a Bible and the ability to read it).
Gay sex does no harm that straight sex doesn’t also do;
Well, gay (vs. lesbian) sex sure as hell is a much more efficient transmission vector for various diseases than straight sex is. There’s a harm right there, even if modern technology permits it’s alleviation to a certain extent (with an associated cost).
Qgrrl:
at 15% of the population, gay men
I’d appreciate it if you could tell me where this number comes from?
slyphhead:
There was no such thing as a sucky gate called the ‘the needle’ through which merchants had to pass, as the archaeological record shows. What Jesus said about the Camelus dromedarius and sewing implements is exactly what it sounds like he meant. When Christians repent of that, then maybe gay citizens will oblige kindly with a ‘one gay-bash free’ card, redeemable at your local megachurch.
I have no idea what this means, or how it relates to the discussion.
So then, as a matter of public policy, we should privilege lesbian relationships over straight ones and straight relationships over gay ones? Just to be consistent, I mean.
I believe that what it means is that Jesus himself said far more about the accumulation of wealth and the need for caring for our least privileged members of society than he ever said about homosexuality. Yet at least in the US, the most vocally outspoken proponents of Christianity are also the most likely to favor policies extremely favorable to the very very wealthy.
Thus, when you say that the ‘Christian’ objection to homosexuality is that the pro-homosexuality movement is trying to turn ‘a sin’ into ‘not a sin’, one has to wonder why there hasn’t been a similarly vociferous objection to . . . say . . . the Republican party, which has been campaignign to turn the love of money into ‘not a sin’ for years.
—Myca
Well, it seems to be a short road from “we should consider the ramifications of ______” to “don’t talk about _______”. that seems, um…. ** well, i don’t know what it seems. Mostly it seems like passing the buck. What’s up with that?
*** Damn, I need a new word (can anyone help here?) to reflect the universal tendency to characterize all groups somewhat inaccurately… on this board, “racist” won’t fly as applied to blacks; is there some new word that means “making a lot of assumptions about someone based on the class they fall into” which IS appropriate to use to describe a speaker who is also disempowered in some way? Is “bigoted” appropriate, or….?
I ask this because there are times (like here) where it’s apposite, and I don’t especially want to get into the whole “can ___ be racist” every time it comes up.
I believe that what it means is that Jesus himself said far more about the accumulation of wealth and the need for caring for our least privileged members of society than he ever said about homosexuality.
A common argument. But back in Jesus’ day, the moral issues around being wealthy were much at issue; the moral issues around sexuality were not. He spent the majority of his time teaching about those things that people needed teaching about, not things they already knew.
Yet at least in the US, the most vocally outspoken proponents of Christianity are also the most likely to favor policies extremely favorable to the very very wealthy.
Well, there’s outspoken and there’s what the media covers. There are plenty of outspoken proponents of Christianity that are mindful of Jesus’ words regarding wealth. But, forsaking wealth, they don’t own their own TV stations, and they can talk all they want without getting media coverage. I wonder if a slight paraphrase of H.L. Mencken fits here; “Freedom of the press belongs to the person who owns one.”
While I agree, I also don’t think that the outrage and activism of Christians (as a group) over the growing gap between the very rich and the very poor comes anywhere freaking near at all in anyway even a little, goddammit to the outrage and activism of Christians (as a group) over homosexuality.
I believe that this is because most Christians want to be wealthy, but don’t particularly want to have sex with other men.
—Josh
I’d appreciate it if you could tell me where this information comes from.
If by “gay sex” you mean anal sex, some opposite sex couples engage in anal sex. Some same-sex male couples do not.
I do not understand what you are arguing here.
/sorry ’bout messing up the block quote
/still learning
[No problem, and it’s now fixed! –Amp]
RonF: Can we please stop flogging that dead horse? Focusing here on HIV and AIDS: while men who have sex with men still account for a larger proportion of new HIV infections in the United States, heterosexual transmission has the highest growing rate – from 3% of all new cases in 1985 to 35% in 2004. And in many other regions of the world, especially impoverished regions such as sub-Saharan Africa (which is more heavily impacted by HIV and AIDS than any other region in the world), heterosexual sex is by far the most prevalent method of transmission.
Especially in the United States, the erroneous and damaging myth that only, or mostly, gay men get AIDS and other STDs is one of the reasons that the rate of transmission among heterosexuals is rising – because they think they’re somehow safer and therefore can afford to be less careful because they’re straight. To repeat a mantra of HIV/AIDS awareness: No one is immune.
And really, your statement should read “receptive penile insertion is sure as hell a much more efficient transmission vector for various diseases than sex without penile insertion is.” And to apply your logic: since the majority of people with penises are men, there’s a harm right there, to men, in general, having sex.
Neev: Er… what? Take the recent immigration battles for one; laws that are currently being proposed, as well the a whole long history of la migra (INS), disproportionately target Latino immigrants. Take the invasion, colonization, and subjugation of Puerto Rico, for another example. No, Latinos were not the victims of slavery, but slavery is certainly not the only way in which people of color have been oppressed in the history of the u.s.
See my above concerns about white people speculating on homophobia in communities of color? Case in point.
Sailorman: Well, I personally feel very comfortable saying, yes, white people, don’t make speculative pronouncements about why you think Black people are homophobic based on your probably limited knowledge of and assumptions about Black culture, which are bound to be tainted by racism.
I believe the word you’re looking for is prejudice.
“I’d appreciate it if you could tell me where this information comes from” was a reference to Qgrrl’s apparent statement that 15% of the male population is homosexual.
Yes, what you note about anal sex is true, but overall anal sex is practiced, oh, I’d guess an order of magnitude or more by male homosexual couples than heterosexual couples.
As someone else already asked, do you therefore argue that lesbian sex is in some way more moral than straight sex? It’s inconsistent to use this argument to suggest that straight sex is morally superior to man/man sex unless you’re also going to argue that lesbian sex is morally superior to straight sex.
Regarding “homophobia,” it seems to me that you’re the one who’s trying to control language here. One of the legitimate uses of the word is to refer to bigotry or prejudice against homosexuals; that’s how the language developed. You’re trying to say that we shouldn’t use the word the way native English speakers commonly use it because you object to the political ramifications.
I actually agree with you that the use of a medical-sounding term is unfortunate; I wish that some other term, like “heterosexist” or “sexualist,” had ended up being the word. But that’s not how things worked out. And speculating about how the Big Gay Conspiracy pushed the word “homophobia” for nefarious purposes isn’t useful, and ignores that it’s actually incredibly difficult for any interest group to control how the English language organically develops.
“highest growing rate” does not equal “most efficient method.” It’s apples and oranges.
To repeat a mantra of HIV/AIDS awareness: No one is immune.
That’s for damn sure. “Less efficient” does not equal “completely immune to” either.
And really, your statement should read “receptive penile insertion is sure as hell a much more efficient transmission vector for various diseases than sex without penile insertion is.”
Actually, my point is that penile/anal sex is a much more efficient transmission vector than penile/vaginal sex is.
do you therefore argue that lesbian sex is in some way more moral than straight sex?
It was proposed that the level of harm represented by gay sex is no different than the level of harm represented by straight sex. I gave a properly qualified example to counter that. There are other factors involved in comparing the morality of the two, so I’m not going to use the one factor to make an overall judgement. If that was the only factor involved, then I’d answer “yes”, but it’s not the only factor involved.
ignores that it’s actually incredibly difficult for any interest group to control how the English language organically develops.
I actually don’t agree with that.
I suppose that it’s possible for someone to believe that homosexual behavior is morally wrong and yet not be homophobic/heterosexist/whatever word will get you past your semantic quibbles.
However, far too often, those moral judgments lead to actual discrimination against and oppression of queer people, not limited to physical violence. (And, by the way, I find your reference to the “stringing up” of Matthew Shepherd to be rather insensitive, coming from you.)
Many people use their Christian faith as justification for their disapproval of homosexuality. And many of those people will act on that disapproval in pushing for legislation to ban state-sanctioned gay marriage, gay adoption, domestic partner benefits, etc.
However, that very same Christian faith also strongly disapproves of premarital sex and divorce, amongst other things related to sexuality and relationships. And yet, I don’t see those Christians rallying to restrict state-sanctioned marriage to virgins who have never been married before, or to bar people from adopting if they’ve had premarital sex. People who have sex before marriage and divorcees are not singled out as classes of people to be barred from partaking fully in society’s institutions, whereas queer people are indeed singled out for their sexual orientations and activities.
Therein lies the homophobia, therein lies the heterosexism. It’s not because homosexual behavior is prohibited in the Bible; tons of activities in which heterosexuals partake on a regular basis are similarly prohibited and deemed immoral, but you don’t see anyone trying to take away those heterosexuals’ rights. This isn’t about faith or morality, really; it’s about continued prejudice and discrimination against queer people.
Also, to add another to the list of -phobia words that are often used to refer to bigotry, prejudice and discrimination: xenophobia, in reference to the hatred of and discrimination against immigrants.
Right, right, right!
It’s the hypocrisy of saying:
“My sins are . . .
‘perfectly understandable slips’ (in the case or per-marital sex)
‘part of the modern world’ (in the case of divorce)
‘not really sins’ (in the case of the lust for money that infests the modern right)
. . . and so they certainly don’t need any legislation against them.”
Meanwhile:
“Your sins are abhorrent, an abomination before God, and will cause society itself to CRUMBLE, so we must legislate immediately! Pass an amendment!”
And, if you dislike modern coinings, I can promise you that ‘xenophobia’ wasn’t a product of some shadowy cabal of language manipulators, it’s a perfectly valid word, and has been for a good long while.
Not to mention that the Bible specifically addresses this in the whole mote/log metaphor and yet bigots continue to think that Other People’s Problems are so much more worth addressing than their own.
This is why I believe that folks who cite their religion to justify their bigotry must really really freaking hate Christ, if they want to go this far out of their way to twist his entire message.
Pingback: AngryBrownButch » Blog Archive » From Alas, A Blog: Race, Opposition to Equal Marriage Rights, And Homophobia
RonF – Thanks for the clarification. Can I follow up?
Okay, so I just want to get the numbers straight in my head. (And below I’m going to ignore that there are children in the US population to make the math easier for me.)
Assume that there are 300 million people in the US. A fairly modest estimate (modest in that some researchers claim 10% or even 15%, doubting religious organizations claim 3% or fewer) of the percentage of homosexuals is 5%, or 15 million people. If exactly half of that 5% is male, that is 7.5 million male homosexuals.
A very large percentage of that 7.5 million is, let’s say, 75%. If 75% of male homosexual population has anal sex, that is 5,625,000 men. (I’m not saying that this number is correct; it’s just for illuminating the discusion – the number could be higher or lower.)
The heterosexual population remaining is 285 million people. Using the above numbers, the 75% of homosexual men engaging in anal sex equals 1.974% of the total number of heterosexuals.
I do not believe that it is possible for the number of homosexual men engaging in anal sex to be an order of magnitude or more than the number of heterosexuals engaging in anal sex.
In other words, I believe that far more than 5,625,000 heterosexuals, more than 1.974% of the heterosexual population, engages in anal sex.
Further, let’s go higher. If 10% of the US population is homosexual (30 million), and half of the homosexual population is male (15 million), and all male homosexuals engage in anal sex, that number, 15 million, is still only 5.556% of the remaining heterosexual population (270 million). And still, even with these numbers I do not believe that the number of homosexual men (all of them) engaging in anal sex is greater than the number of heterosexuals engaging in anal sex.
In raw numbers, heterosexuals, being the far larger population, by an order of magnitude or more, engage in anal sex in greater numbers than do homosexual men. So heterosexual anal sex sure as hell is a much more efficient transmission vector for various diseases than homosexual male sex is because the number of heterosexuals engaging in it is larger than the number of homosexual males engaging in it thereby increasing the chances of spreading various diseases within the heterosexual population.
If you’re talking percentages I might cede that you are correct – might – but I’d want to see data. I generally do not assume I know what peoples’ sexual practices are based on their sexual orientation. If you are talking sheer numbers, no way can there be an order of magnitude difference with homosexual anal sex being higher. Those engaging in heterosexual anal sex must outnumber those engaging in homosexual anal sex.
And I still do not understand what you are arguing.
—-
Amp – thank you very much for the fix!
A common argument. But back in Jesus’ day, the moral issues around being wealthy were much at issue; the moral issues around sexuality were not. He spent the majority of his time teaching about those things that people needed teaching about, not things they already knew.
So — The pre-Christian Roman Empire did not have a particular fondness for sexual excess, and Modern America has more or less solved the whole “poverty in midsts of obstentaous wealth” problem?
You really do live in a different world than the rest of us…
Decnavda, you’re mistaking the incidence of a problem with an understanding of the problem. There was tons of sexual immorality in the Roman Empire, and probably in the Jewish community as well – but there wasn’t much controversy in the Jewish community about what the correct sexual morality was. People knew what was right, they just didn’t do it.
Hey, sounds familiar…
The argument before me is, if alternative forms of family, including but not limited to homosexual pairings are harmless, why have we seen no example of them naturally developing in human history? It seems to me that every argument being made today in favor of these changes could as easily have been made four thousand years ago in Babylon.
I have a feeling about the word harmless, it means – no harm. For instance, I consider body art harmless, and what do you know? Lots of examples of different cultures practicing all forms of body art can be found throughout history, some of which have been deemed offensive in western eyes and resisted as sinful or grotesque, but which in the end are truly harmless.
Family is a more serious than that. Family is the framework upon which all of our civilizations have been built, and it is not an accident that every civilization that has ever amounted to anything has resisted any effort to change that.
As difficult as it sometimes is to manage, even though it is harder for some people than for others, the adherence to family come good or bad is why we’re here, it’s why we’ve made it. The modern ethic of family fidelity is that if your family isn’t exactly the way you want it, you can and should bail out of it. We stress that your happiness is what matters, so each day you decide hmmm is this the family I really want, or could I get a better one with someone else?
I don’t believe any society could have survived if they allowed that point of view to take root. I don’t believe it would have had a snowball’s chance.
Decnavada:
So — The pre-Christian Roman Empire did not have a particular fondness for sexual excess, and Modern America has more or less solved the whole “poverty in midsts of obstentaous wealth” problem?
The question at hand was homosexuality, not sexual excess in general. There certainly was homosexuality in the Roman era, but there was little debate among the people that Jesus was preaching to that it was sinful. And there is plenty of agitation about poverty in the midst of ostentatious wealth, and plenty of Christians not just talking about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc., but actually doing it.
Well, Bonnie, perhaps I’m just old fashioned, but it would never occur to me that even 2% of heterosexuals would be engaging in anal sex. Oh, I can hear the shock reverberating around this site now! So when I hear “anal sex” outside of a reference to pornography, I presume that people are talking about male homosexuals. I further presume, with I confess nothing other than my unsupported opinion, that my reaction would be shared by most people. However, if there’s a reference to heterosexual sex practices that has information on this, I’ll read it.
“Heterosexism” I can see. I’ve also heard the word “heteronormative”, used when a speaker at a college (a wife of a famous athlete, but I can’t remember her name) talked about young women starting up romantic relationships and using language that presumed that they would be with young men.
Myca:
“… Not to mention that the Bible specifically addresses this in the whole mote/log metaphor …”
A fair criticism. But, again, it’s one thing for people to go looking for something to criticize in other people, and another for a proponent of what is considered an immoral or sinful act to come to people and ask them to explicitly bless it.
Jack:
And, by the way, I find your reference to the “stringing up” of Matthew Shepherd to be rather insensitive, coming from you.
I apologize if I seemed insensitive. I was trying to give an explicit and extreme example of a horrible thing. When that happened, my principle that capital punishment is wrong was sorely tried. Again, my apology.
Myca, from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary (the first one I turned to, I didn’t go “shopping”) entry for “xenophobia”:
fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign
So that word is understood to include the concept of “fear”, which, given the entymology, it should. Discrimination would be a possible (and likely) result of xenophobia, but it does not appear to be a part of the meaning of the word itself.
As far as other immoral activities that heterosexuals engage in – first, plenty of Christians fought against making those legal or easier to do too, and lost. that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t fight this one. Second, there is no call to give such things special societial sanction. So, for example, there is no call to grant the privileges of marriage to heterosexual unmarried couples or adulterers.
For instance, I consider body art harmless, and what do you know? Lots of examples of different cultures practicing all forms of body art can be found throughout history, some of which have been deemed offensive in western eyes and resisted as sinful or grotesque, but which in the end are truly harmless.
[ off_topic ]
Such as covering women’s bodies with watercolor or latex paints and nothing else and then publishing them in general-circulation magazines such as Sports Illustrated. Not that I have a problem with regarding the unclothed female form, but I’m trying to figure out exactly when this became acceptable. Or at least permissible by large corporations sensitive to public opinion.
[ /off_topic ]
Well, I was referring more to tatoos, piercings, dreadlocks and the like. Porn is harmful in my opinion. The sexual objectification of women and men also contributes to the weakening of family bonds.
I’m trying to figure out exactly when this became acceptable. Or at least permissible by large corporations sensitive to public opinion.
There’s public opinion on one hand and there’s consumer demand on the other. It’s a sad fact that money and influence tend to go hand in hand. I don’t think Heffner loses much sleep over the frowns of harmless elderly Christians.
CJ: Seems like you have a rather parochial view of human history that conveniently props up your views on what does or does not constitute a family.
Do you think that the concept of “family” has been limited to one coherent definition, across all cultures and throughout the many millennia of human existence? This is simply not the case. I’m guessing that by “alternative forms of family,” you mean something other than a married man and woman and probably some kids. Well, many cultures and societies throughout history have defined “family” in very different ways than the standard concept of family in the united states and other modern Western societies. And even in this country, you’ll get all sorts of variations on what comprises a family, with regional, ethnic, religious and other factors coming into play. (Check out the Wikipedia entry on family for a brief but informative introduction to the sociology and history of “family.”)
Oh, for crying out loud, let’s not fall for the AIDS/anal sex red herring. Female homosexual have lower rates of just about every STD out there, including AIDS, so if we’re going to play that game let’s just put lesbians on a pedestal right now.
And as I’ve said before, the acceptance of ostentatious, obscene wealth by Christians (as a group) makes this a lie. Christians (as a group) devote far more time and energy to demonizing homosexuality than they do to, say, demonizing capitalism or fighting for economic equality.
This, of course, is because they’re hypocrites who don’t particularly care what the Bible says.
I think a fairly decent (though short) summary of much of Jesus teachings would be “Be good to each other. Don’t play moral policeman. Take care of your own shit, and when you’re perfect, THEN you can scold your neighbors for their failings. Wealthy people probably won’t ever go to heaven, so the most important thing is to take care of the poor. Practice extreme charity. Forgive people who threaten you.”
Do you honestly think that the crusade to encode anti-gay bigotry into law embodies these teachings?
Personally, I think it shits all over them.
Hi, RonF. I’ve been driving all day, sorry for not responding sooner.
/really tired right now.
Research is good. I’d bet all the money I grossed last year that the percentage is higher than 2%.
A quick Google took me to http://www.kinseyinstitute.org. Under “Sex Practices” you’ll find the following: “10% of men and 9% of women have had anal sex in the past year.” I don’t know how recently this info was taken nor how many people were in the survey, nor when it was taken (maybe the original survey?), but info is out there. No need for something to “occur” to you or me, there are numbers out there.
Seems like there is a wealth of information on heterosexual sex practices from what appear to be reputable organizations all over the internet.
Honestly I’m not casting aspersions. I think that what you find fun and acceptable v. unacceptable sex practices within your own relationship(s) might not actually match what other people find fun and acceptable, nor what they actually do.
We’re both speaking in hypotheticals here, and my exercise was for illustration puposes, but I really believe that the numbers for heterosexual anal sex is higher than you might want to accept. I truly do not have the time for the remainder of the week to hunt around for hard numbers (paper due on Tuesday) for you, but I’m sure if you are interested you can find this information the same as I can.
I am genuinely sorry that you (and others) want to base, in part, anyone’s ability to marry legally the individual of her/his choice on your belief that a sexual practice which is engaged in by humans of all orientations and which may enable disease transmission is reasonable grounds for (1) calling “morality foul” and (2) justifying preventing those individuals from marrying.
Unprotected sex, whether vaginal, anal, or oral, is what presents the opportunity for disease transmission, not solely male homosexual anal sex.
Thank you for a civilized discussion (even tho’ we are a bit OT re: race / equal marriage rights / perceptions of homosexuality).
B.
Yep, all over me and my partner.
14 year monogamous relationship. Fortunate enough to be able to afford an attorney for living wills, wills, powers of attorney.
Let’s see, that is 3 out of 1138 federal rights, responsibilities, and privileges afforded under the federal government for the heterosexual privilege of marriage. Which is not about desire apparently.
I need more money to contract for the rest. Oh, wait – not possible to write most of those contracts. (How does one construct a legal document to confer “I will not testify in court against my same-sex partner whom I cannot marry” that is the same as legal spousal privilege against same? Hmm. What does that have to do with sexual practices?)
Sorry if I seem angry. I don’t appreciate being told that I am immoral. Most moral people don’t. Thank you for all your pithy and on-point postings. You are a gem.
Oh, bother. And I’m OT again. Time for sleep.
I think this is a problematic argument because we can change a few words to get this:
The argument before me is, if alternative forms of family, including but not limited to pairings “in which women are legally treated as an equal partner in marraige instead of being owned first by a father and then by a husband” are harmless, why have we seen no example of them naturally developing in human history? If this argument works in the case of gay partnerships, it must also work in the context of the 1800s and the question of coverture. I assume we can all agree it doesn’t work in the latter context, and therefore it can’t work in the former context either.
Furthermore, the argument seems to ignore some important facts. For one, if by “family” you simply mean two people of the same-sex who act like a couple, then there are, of course, indeed historical cases of that. Take, for instance, Boston Marriages in the 19th century. Or the Ancient Greek philosophers who took their relationships with other men to be a much higher form of love than they could ever have with their wives.
If by “family” you mean a couple with children, I would think it is rather obvious why, until recently, we haven’t seen many gay couples with children. Same reason historically infertile couples did not have children. Because the technology and social institutions which allow couples to have children which are not the product of each member’s gametes is quite new. Thus there were great practical reasons why the Ancient Greeks couldn’t have just said “Hey I love this 16 year old boy and want to have sex with him way more than I love or want to have sex with my wife. And we all seem to be in that position. So let’s just get rid of this whole marriage thing and then we can just have the highest form of love all the time.” The need to reproduce new members of society would have then gone unfulfilled. Of course, they could have simply required everyone to randomly have some heterosexual sex once a year or something to make sure more children were produced, but this would have offended against the patriarchal view that one’s wife and one’s children are one’s property. (Note in The Republic, when Plato suggests such a system, the objection is framed in terms of “sharing wives” as if wives are just objects.)
CJ: Seems like you have a rather parochial view of human history that conveniently props up your views on what does or does not constitute a family.
Jack, it is far from convenient.
Do you think that the concept of “family” has been limited to one coherent definition, across all cultures and throughout the many millennia of human existence?
Of course not. But the historical variations you are referring to have less in common with our modern definitions of family than they do with traditional. What they have in common is that, whatever their format, responsibility to family is not considered optional. It ensures that no matter what else you might not have, at least you have a network of relatives. Your safety net.
The ethic we are embracing that if you don’t like your family, break it. Find something better. That sounds great to the gay father who cannot abide being involved with the mother of his child. But it also sounds great to the straight father who pines for younger women, or the homophobic father who longs to banish his homosexual child from his life.
Allowing these connections to break is harmful. In the long run, I believe it is fatal, like the threads in a shirt that are cut one by one. At first it looks like nothing’s wrong, then it goes through the wash a couple of times and you realize it’s wrecked.
So, your agrument is just a slippery slope fallacy then?
You’re very welcome, and you should never feel the need to apologize for your anger over being denied your basic human rights.
I have faith that there will come a better time when the people who are denying your rights now will beg for your forgiveness. This can’t last forever.
I think we’re talking past each other here.
I read CJ to raise two main points. CJ questions why history has so few examples of families consisting of homosexual couples. And CJ warns of the consequences of a perceived decline in commitment to family. If there’s a connection between these two points, I haven’t seen it.
Anyway, Jack and others focus on the first point. In responds, CJ has now focused on the second. For what it’s worth, I don’t see much connection between the remarks.
I just submitted a comment and then it disappeared, so forgive me if this appears twice.
I fail to see how any of this relates to a condemnation of gay marriage. Same sex couples aren’t trying to break their families, they’re trying to make their families stronger by securing the same protections and privileges that families based around heterosexual couples are assured. Queer people who wish to marry are actually fighting tooth and nail to take on the very familial responsibilities and bonds that you so celebrate.
If anyone is “anti-family” in this picture, it’s the people who, because of homophobia and heterosexism, are fighting to keep queer people from forming and taking care of their families. They might want to preach a whole lot of b.s. about how they’re trying to protect the family, but the truth is, they’re fighting against families that they don’t like or don’t approve.
Also, I’m not sure if you were trying to link “the gay father who cannot abide being involved with the mother of his child” to gay marriage, but they seem like rather unrelated issues to me.
“A common argument. But back in Jesus’ day, the moral issues around being wealthy were much at issue; the moral issues around sexuality were not. He spent the majority of his time teaching about those things that people needed teaching about, not things they already knew.”
The Bible, especially the New Testament (so barring that ‘flowers in the fields’ quote from Provers – or was it Ecclesiasticles – that is often taken out of context. That Solomon was a debauch, idolatrous old perv who was converted to Baal-worship by his concubines does not seem to deter conservatives who quote him as their Biblical hero), is unambiguous in that wealth is not okay. You cannot serve both money and God, money is the root of the all evil, and try as I might, I could not even get so much as a mouse to go through the eye of a machine ballpoint, so good luck with that camel there, Pat Robertson. To say that the Bible’s condemnation of wealth was ‘reflective of its era’ – i.e. not applicable to the modern pharisaical Christian Right – is to say that the Bible’s pronouncements for humanity are obsolete today.
What my earlier statement about the camel and the needle referred to was the way many Christians have sought to explain away the Bible’s hostility to wealth into something more palatable. I heard one that stated that there was a famous gate into Jerusalem called the “Eye of the Needle”, from its faulty construction. Traders entering it had to unpack their camels in order to fit through them – thus, in order to get to heaven, you had to ‘unpack’ your earthly possessions since rich and poor are alike in God’s eyes. Not a bad sentiment – but lo and behold, there is no archaeological record of any such gate, nor have serious scholars ever doubted the literal meaning of the passage. Upper class Christianity has revolved around the idea that you can’t let your wealth ‘possess’ you. And who gets to decide whether it’s ‘possessing’ them or not? They do! It’s almost like they’re choosing their own morality, wouldn’t you say? It’s all right that they are sinners, but they don’t ackowledge their sin nor repent of their sinful lifestyles, don’t they?
Many passages, such as the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, make it clear that wealth itself is the sin. (There is no mention of the rich man ‘abusing’ his wealth and power; merely that he was wealthy and powerful.)
Christians (as a group) devote far more time and energy to demonizing homosexuality than they do to, say, demonizing capitalism or fighting for economic equality.
Perhaps that’s because Jesus never condemmed capitalism and never said anything about striving for economic equality among people. He did say things about people who accumulate wealth it’s own sake, but he also said approving things about servants who didn’t just sit on their money but lent it out at interest or put it out in the marketplace, which seems pretty capitalist to me. “Capitalism” is not equivalent to “rich”, so a condemnation of rich people is not a condemnation of capitalism. And I think his comment that “the poor will always be with us” applies to his attitudes towards the likelihood of achieving economic equality among all people. He did, of course, command people to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc., but that has nothing to do with capitalism either.
Bonnie said:
Sorry if I seem angry. I don’t appreciate being told that I am immoral.
I must say that I’m treated a lot better here that many of you would be treated in other places I’ve been.
slyphhead:
To say that the Bible’s condemnation of wealth was … not applicable to the modern pharisaical Christian Right – is to say that the Bible’s pronouncements for humanity are obsolete today.
Correct. Which is why I didn’t say it.
“Jack, it is far from convenient.”
And it’s less convenient for some more than others. You being ‘others’.
“Of course not. But the historical variations you are referring to have less in common with our modern definitions of family than they do with traditional.”
Take any argument from history against gay m”Jack, it is far from convenient.”
And it’s less convenient for some more than others. You being ‘others’.
“Of course not. But the historical variations you are referring to have less in common with our modern definitions of family than they do with traditional.”
Take any argument from history against gay marriage and replace ‘homosexual relations’ with ‘miscegenation’, proper social role of marriage with proper social roles of husbands and wives, and the fallacy will become apparent. It’s interesting how anti-gay activists propose what is actually a step back in our conception of marriage, in that it be not out of ‘desire’ – which in a non-prurient mind translates to ‘love’ – but fulfilling some sort of social obligation of the sort not seen since a woman’s biggest selling point were those ‘huge tracts of land’ mentioned in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
“responsibility to family is not considered optional”
Responsibility to family in the sense of emotional, financial, and moral obligations to real life spouses, children, parents, relatives, loved ones? Or responsibility to an abstract concept vaguely defined as to serve the supremacist fantasies of bitter old men? Perhaps disagreement only arises from loose definitions of basic terms.
The options of that homosexual child you mention, out of a commendable reach for bipartisanship, are severely curtailed by those who purport to be all for capital ‘f’ Family. Hell, some won’t even let public schools teach anti-gay bullying programs to their students.
“To say that the Bible’s condemnation of wealth was … not applicable to the modern pharisaical Christian Right – is to say that the Bible’s pronouncements for humanity are obsolete today.
Correct. Which is why I didn’t say it.”
So it is impossible to both be wealthy and serve God? Just so we’re clear.
“He did say things about people who accumulate wealth it’s own sake”
As opposed to all the rich guys Jesus praised for accumulating money NOT for its own sake? The condemnation of the rich is very general, and what is being condemned is not obsession with wealth, or attitudes about wealth. It is wealth.
What’s interesting about the ‘poor will always be with us’ that conservatives love to quote (damn, I forgot about it in my initial post) is that it was a clear example of Jesus rejecting sexism – Jesus’ followers did not think Mary of Bethany worthy to perfume Jesus’ feet, whereas Jesus did. Conservatives miss the obvious point of the passage and use it to extrapolate support for an ideology that goes against the fat stack of sentiment in the New Testament. The Sermon on the Mount is pretty clear that the poor are, not merely equal to, but morally superior to the rich. Getting rid of one’s possessions was a prerequisite to being an early follower of Jesus, so to claim that Jesus did not advocate wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor requires very creative gymnastics with the Gospel.
So, your agrument is just a slippery slope fallacy then?
Myca, I’ll use my personal history as an example. Grandpa was a man under great stress and suffering great emotional difficulties because of his experiences in the service and the demands of a family and running a farm. Grandpa and grandma had seven children, and there was often a lot of anger in the house, and probably more whuppings than was deserved.
If we could look in on them when they were a young man and woman we might, with modern eyes, judge they they should divorce. And I can well believe from what I’ve heard about them that there were enough moments of stress and dismay that they might have went for it.
But would that have been better? There would be a period of relief, naturally. The farm would have been lost for sure. My father and each of his siblings would have been taught that the proper course of action when not getting along with each other is bugger off, and I know that most of them have had their share of tough times. The family would be divided. Mary could not have maintained the farm alone. The loss of the land would have economically impacted all of them; grandpa and grandma, my father and mother, three uncles, two aunts, and between them, to date, about forty of their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren would be poorer for it.
Would my father have stayed if grandfather had divorced? Would I have had the education and opportunity to own my house if grandpa’s acts had impoverished my father’s? Would my parents own theirs at this moment in time? Would I know my cousins and aunts and uncles and have the relationships with them that I do now, or in their own times of disagreement and crisis would they also have parted ways and frittered away their days in solitary lives, or in one temporary relationship after another in a search for the personal ideal as is so common today? We, all of us, would be poorer people.
To an outside observer, everything would look normal though. Someone else would be driving my car, living in my home. Someone else would be living in my parent’s home and driving their cars. No one would think it odd if someone else, not us, were living the lives we now hold. And they could therefore say ‘Look! Life goes on! Divorce does no harm!’
That didn’t happen of course. Grandpa and grandma never divorced. Mom and pop didn’t divorce. None of my aunts and uncles divorced. Despite all the hardship we endured we are solid in our togetherness, and long after the day to day heartaches are gone there is only the knowledge that we are family and we stick together. Grandpa and grandma never failed their family when it counted.
Well, if you can squeeze through the eye of that needle you can do it.
Seriously; yes, Jesus condemned wealth. But he also praised it’s proper use:
Luke 19:11-27:
While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]’Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’
“But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’ “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it. “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’ ” ‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’ “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’ “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’ “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’ “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’ “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’ ” ‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’ “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”
God wants you to use your gifts, even if those gifts includes money.
Interesting passage, RonF. Tell me, though, does this passage also indicate that Jesus endorses dictatorships enforced by the execution of dissenters?
RonF –
That passage is called, in the Bible, the parable of the talents. Call me nuts, but I think it is meant to be interpreted as a parable about talents.
Conversly, that story of the rich man who asks Jesus what he must do to enter heaven and is told that he must sell all his posessions and give the money to the poor is presented as fact. I find it interesting that most people who call themselves biblical literalists believe in interpreting stated parables literally but interprete actuall events ans having an alagorical meaning.
I bet you believe in interpreting the Constitution as strictly as you interpret the Bible, don’t you?
Responsibility to family in the sense of emotional, financial, and moral obligations to real life spouses, children, parents, relatives, loved ones?
Yes, exactly.
Take any argument from history against gay marriage and replace ‘homosexual relations’ with ‘miscegenation’, proper social role of marriage with proper social roles of husbands and wives, and the fallacy will become apparent.
Not really sure what you mean.
It’s interesting how anti-gay activists propose what is actually a step back in our conception of marriage, in that it be not out of ‘desire’ – which in a non-prurient mind translates to ‘love’ – but fulfilling some sort of social obligation
I am not an anti-gay activist. I am not advocating any particular role for fathers or mothers, or men or women, but we can either have a model of family that assures a solid network of relatives, or we can have a model of family that allows the primary caregivers to make day to day qualitative judgments about how much pleasure they get from being a part of their families, and stay or go on that basis.
This is true, absolutely, but my point is that capitalism does precisely the same thing for the sin of greed that you claim the pro-homosexual lobby does for (what you consider) the sin of homosexuality. According to capitalism, greed is a virtue. It’s positive, because the system doesn’t really work unless everyone acts in their own self-interest.
Capitalism takes a sin and tries to make it ‘not a sin’.
And by the way, Jesus never condemned homosexuality at all. If you want to play the ‘he never said anything explicit’ game, it works both ways.
—Myca
So, now, wait a sec . . .
The Bible says not to wear your piety in public and make a big deal out of how pious you are, but rather to make it a private deal. The Bible also says that rich people will really only go to heaven if they give all of their money and possessions to the poor. The Bible says to show mercy and forgiveness to those who seek to do you harm, and if someone strikes one of your cheeks, to offer him the other one.
And yet George Bush took the Christian vote?
Ah right. He hates the gays, so that explains it.
—Myca
Initially I was concerned that my remarks would seem off-topic, but I can’t think of any remarks that would be off-topic in this discussion. :-)
The condemnation of the rich is very general, and what is being condemned is not obsession with wealth, or attitudes about wealth. It is wealth.
One man’s theology: If a car cash puts me into a coma for the rest of my life, I might eventually die a wealthy man because my family would sue, in my name, the people who drove the car that hit me. I kinda don’t think Jesus was talking about people in that situation. I understand Jesus to have expressed concerns about wealth because wealth implies that the wealthy person forsook the opportunity to help less wealthy people. It is the foregone opportunity to help my neighbor that concerned Jesus, not the wealth in itself.
According to capitalism, greed is a virtue. It’s positive, because the system doesn’t really work unless everyone acts in their own self-interest.
I humbly suggest this is a caricature of capitalism. I understand capitalism to involve little more than private parties exercising control over their own property. Yes, people motivated by greed may exercise their ingenuity to enhance their own wealth, but people motivated by selflessness may do so as well. But no one is compelled to greed; nor does capitalism fail if anyone, or everyone, acts selflessly.
Yes, some/many/most people are motivated by greed. This is not a reflection on capitalism; greed motivates plenty of corruption in non-capitalist institutions, too. Capitalism’s insight is not that greed is good, but that greed can in many respects be reconciled with the public good. Capitalism’s sin is not greed, but candor: rather than condemning and concealing greed (or ambition of any other variety), it acknowledges and harnesses it.
Industry does not equal greed; industry is a necessary step on the road to loving your neighbor. The “Parable of the Talents” simply exhorts us to use our resources of whatever nature industriously because from those to whom much is given, much is expected. The demand for both talent and money exceed the supply, and squandering either represents a theft from society. If you could grow 100 bushels of wheat, or if you have an insight that could help your society increase wheat harvest by 100 bushels, but instead you sit on your ass, your society is 100 bushels poorer either way. The sin of wealth – hoarding an extra 100 bushels of wheat – is certainly no worse than the sin of sloth.
Imagine you are starving. A farmer may have raised some food, but may have no compassion for you. I, on the other hand, am filled with compassion, but I never bothered to raise any food. The Parable of the Talents says that the farmer and I are equally guilty of failing to love our neighbor. My current poverty does not excuse me from the condemnation leveled against the wealthy. For I was wealthy in opportunity, and if I had truly set my mind upon doing what was best for you I would have worked industriously toward that end. Forsaken wealth may be less conspicuous than hoarded wealth, but it’s certainly no less pernicious from societies’ (or god’s) – or your – perspective.
Love your neighbor. Pray for heaven. Work like hell.
Actually, the virtues of greed are a core element of capitalism, according to pro-capitalist theorists. To quote Adam Smith:
Define greed. If your deffinition allows for a proper respect for the rights of others, and a proper understanding of those rights, greed is far better than altruism. Too many liberals want to be their brother’s keeper. I think the poor and oppressed have had enough of being kept by others. Empower them to provide for their own liberation, and it will happen faster than I could do it for them.
Without such a respect for the rights of others, well, then greed is as destructive as any other emotion or motivation without a proper respect for the rights of others.
Actually, the virtues of greed are a core element of capitalism, according to pro-capitalist theorists. To quote Adam Smith….
… and where does Smith say greed is a virtue?
Rather, Smith acknowledged that people are motivated by self-interest, and by understanding this dynamic, we can better design our worlds. Similarly, Newton acknowledged that objects are motivated by gravity, and by understanding this dynamic, we can better design our worlds. In this sense, I don’t understand gravity or greed as virtues; rather, I observe them as facts.
But here’s the larger point: Whether you seek to raise money for your own benefit or to benefit others, you can go about it in a similar manner. Thus, while we commonly observe people working to amass wealth out of self-interest, the act of amassing wealth is not exclusively a self-interested pursuit. LifeTime Fitness is a for-profit corporation. The YMCA is a not-for-profit organization with a charitable mission. Both organizations sell gym memberships with comparable services at comparable prices. Self-interest or charitable interest, they operate with remarkable similarity in a capitalist market.
That passage is called, in the Bible, the parable of the talents. Call me nuts, but I think it is meant to be interpreted as a parable about talents.
Actually, I found it here, where it’s called “The Parable of the Ten Minas”. If you look here it’s called “The Parable of the Talents”, but then in that passage the unit of money is called “talents”. I do think that the idea is that you should use your God-given talents/abilities instead of sitting on them, but I doubt that Jesus intended an English pun here.
I find it interesting that most people who call themselves biblical literalists believe in interpreting stated parables literally but interprete actuall events ans having an alagorical meaning.
Well, I’ve never called myself a Biblical literalist, so no worries for me there.
If a car cash puts me into a coma for the rest of my life, I might eventually die a wealthy man because my family would sue, in my name, the people who drove the car that hit me.
You would not “die a wealthy man” because, even if your family won the lawsuit, they’d be winning the costs of your medical care and of their financial loss as a result of your being in a coma. They might get additional non-economic damages for the fact that they have lost you, but hardly enough to make them rich–and none of it would go to you. As if you would care, being in a coma.
Jesus condemned wealth. But he also praised it’s proper use
You should read Matthew. Jesus was pretty clear that the best use of wealth is to give it away and follow God.
As if you would care, being in a coma.
Yes I would care, if being wealthy automatically excluded me from heaven.
But my thesis is that Jesus didn’t really care about wealth; he cared about foregone opportunities to help your neighbor. Because people in comas do not have the opportunity to help anybody, they can’t forego the opportunity to help anybody, either. Ergo, a person who achieves wealth after he loses the opportunity to help his neighbor would not necessarily be excluded from heaven simply as a result of his wealth. THAT was my (inartfully articulated) point in raising the coma hypothetical.
But my thesis is that Jesus didn’t really care about wealth
You know, I’m not quite sure how Jesus could possibly have been clearer about his views on wealth.
Oh, sure he could have been clearer. Jesus could have said, “Condemnation of wealth is the cornerstone of my world view. It is more important than doing justice or loving mercy or walking humbly with your god.”
To be sure, Jesus’ literal words suggest that he could condemn someone to hell simply because she had acheived wealth after she had entered a coma. But I find this view difficult to reconcile with his occasional digression onto other topics, such as love and compassion.
But hey – as I say, it’s just one man’s theology.
Pingback: Link Roundup and Open Thread « The Angry Black Woman