What Are Best Friends For?

 “I hope your friend does, in fact, find out about your vulgar beliefs
pertaining to gay rights. I hope, soon, you will realize that your
sexual orientation is not superior and that marriage equality has
nothing to do with sexual intercourse and everything to do with HUMAN
rights.”

Wow! Maybe this person is struggling with their beliefs. Maybe this is a process. Not everyone can simply sweep their entire belief system under the rug in a moment. Just as some have to wrestle with being gay, how they’re going to tell family and friends, and worry what others might think there are others who have to equally wrestle with the fact they’re friend is gay and their entire belief system stands in contrast to them remaining friends. Grow up! So much for the “Friendly Atheist.” Get some years on your and you will realize life is much more complicated.

I would hope that by the time he’d gotten around to being best friends, the struggle with beliefs would have long since resolved itself.  You’re giving bigotry a pass here.

I’m not for a minute defending the anti-gay sentiment expressed by the friend, but I can kind of understand the supposed contradiction in being friends with someone who is gay and still believing that gay rights shouldn’t be supported.  He probably doesn’t think of his friend in terms of orientation at all and probably does not understand what the concept of gay rights means to him – they have probably never even discussed the matter.  There’s also the unfortunate reality of gays reinforcing this by being dismissive of gay rights; i.e., read the Gay Republican blogs out there that are semi-defensive of GOP policies.

Most gay Republicans consider the official party line on LGBT issues unfortunate, but they also tend to be fiscally conservatives/agree with conservative approaches outside of the Religious Right, so they justify their party affiliation with “Well, other issues are more important right now.”

You should note this was a guest post, not written by Hemant himself.  Having said that, there’s nothing unfriendly about it, the poster is simply pointing out that the belief that someone should be denied any rights because of their sexual orientation is vulgar, I agree.

It’s not even the usual pathetic “love the sinner, hate the sin” rhetoric, they are quite happy calling them their gay best friend, will probably hang out with them, laugh with them, watch tv, or go to a movie with them and still think (privately) that their “best friend”  deserves less than they do.  

Hypocritical, ignorant and vulgar behavior. 

 That is so hard for me to reconcile, that anyone could think “well, sure, a lot of people in that political party (including many if not all ruling members) think I’m an abomination of Nature and God and would at best deny me any and all civil rights and see to it that I can’t even find work and at worst would like to either jail or execute me and maybe even torture the “gay” out of me at some point in the process, but I like how they’re fiscally conservative and believe in a free (for all) capitalist system, so I can get over the fact that they hate me and would like me to be homeless, jailed, or dead.”

To me, that’s like someone black saying “sure, they hate me and want to make sure I am treated like a second class citizen, that outright legalized discrimination will follow me and hold me and my children back for life, that I am made a perpetual slave and kept in the “bad” neighborhoods with no prospects allowed to ever leave it, that they want to prevent my or my children’s attendance in institutes of higher education,  that they essentially see my kind as some sort of slave or servant race who should be kept there by any means necessary….but they really do seem to love Jesus, so I guess I can overlook all of that in favor of the more important issues.”

Or to Godwin the thread, a Jewish guy saying “Well, that Hitler fellow sure has it in for my people and wants to either enslave us or genocide us….but I like what he said about Germany fighting back and taking over Europe.  I think I can overlook his opinions about Jews in favor of the more important issues for Germany.”

I just don’t  trust it.  This isn’t like, say, having a bit of disagreement over your party’s views on gun control, this is about that party having an agenda to wipe you off the map or at least lock you back in the closet on pain of death, and how on earth can you overlook something like that?  I can’t help but think those people are either putting some massive blinders on or are deluded enough to think that won’t bite them square in the ass if that group ever got the power they seek, that maybe those Repubs will say “wow, those gay Repubs did some great work for us, maybe they aren’t the Abominations Worth of Death that the Bible says they are!  You know what, why don’t we just be nice to them instead?”

I mean, don’t we have an example?  Wasn’t there some guy whose help was indispensable in winning WWII, and then right after the victory his country said “thanks for all that indispensable assistance that helped us win the war, now that we don’t need you anymore you’re under arrest for being gay?”  Hmm, now what was his name again…..it’s on the tip of my tongue….

As an example of what I am saying here I will criticize this sentence: “Imagine someone saying, ‘When my black best friend finds out I’m racist and support segragation, I’m afraid he won’t be my friend anymore.’ ”

He did not express a hatred of gays nor support for any form of segregation for gays. A better analogy would be someone who thinks that Affirmative Action is actually (and it is) a form of discrimination. They might have a friend who is black that they would avoid the subject on. This in no way means the view their black friend as inferior. They might just value the friendship more than agreement on the subject.

This is entirely different than if the friend forces the discussion, in which case, one should express ones true opinion, although it is acceptable to say, “I’m afraid we may not see eye to eye on this. Are you sure you want to discuss it?”

“I hope, soon, you will realize that your sexual orientation is not superior and that marriage equality has nothing to do with sexual intercourse and everything to do with HUMAN rights.”

This statement is false. Having perfect eyesight is objectively superior to being blind, or needing glasses. All other things being equal the perfectly sighted will biologically outcompete those not so gifted (unless you are a cave fish). In the case of humans we can compensate in various ways, like eye glasses and white canes. However tHe compensations have associated costs. One must manufacture the aids and that is a cost the perfectly sighted do not bear. So even in that case the one is superior to the other.

Homosexuality is under normal circumstances humans are likely to encounter, all other things being equal, an inferior biological condition to heterosexuality. If all penguins were homosexual the species would go extinct. Human homosexuals can compensate with things like overcoming ones natural tastes, artificial insemination and the like but these have costs. So like with eyesight there is an objective superiority of heterosexuality over homosexuality with regards to reproduction.

As there is no need to ban people with bad eyesight from breeding, or to punish, or shun them the same is true for sexual orientation. selective pressures will take care of that and will properly weigh the cost of compensatory actions without any need to calculate them (assuming no forced redistribution of income).

[… And no this does not require people to starve in the streets but I don’t want to cover all the wrong thinking in that regard at this time]

Human rights is an invention of the left used to label whatever right they happen to desire to grant. There is no disciple of thought going into it and often one human right claimed is in direct conflict with another. This is because they are often positive rights, like the right to have health care provided which implies a right to force others to provide it, which turns them into little more than slaves of the state.

The right to gay marriage is a natural right, not a “human”one. Gay marriage is a negative right and imposes no costs on others. There is no need to use the adjective “human”.

Under such a view homosexuals have equality of authority. It is impossible for them to have either equality of results or equality of nature, given the realities. That equality of authority does not arise because of any false claim that all humans are equal in ability. It arises out of the nature of reciprocal cooperation. All humans are self interested agents and as such would only reasonably agree to a set of rules that gives equal authority to all. Rules that slant the field in one direction, contain double standards, or are unfair in apportioning authority in other ways will not gain as widespread an acceptance. One cannot expect cooperation from others when one has games the rules in ones own favor or those of ones group.

My neighbor does not have to be my equal in every way for him to cooperate with me. In fact it is our differences in talent, training and knowledge that allows increased benefits through trade. There should be many ways that the differences between the the differing sexual orientations can lead to mutual benefit. Adoption being a case in point.

First “brianmacker” there are homosexual penguins and the species is doing fine.  This notion that “if all [species X] were gay they would die out” is a ridiculous trope and a strawman.  Not all humans are gay ergo gay people will not cause the human race to die out.  Numerous species display homosexual activity without dying out as a result.

Secondly has it not occurred to anyone that the picture in the post is a joke and it is deliberately written to illustrate the feelings of a closeted gay person?  Word it this way:

“My best friend doesn’t know that I am gay.

I’m afraid that if he ever finds out he won’t want to be my friend any more”

That’s what it’s meant to be about:  It’s about a change in attitudes so that gay people no longer need to fear the reaction of others and instead it’s bigots who are the ones who need to worry.

 I’ll admit I had not thought about it in that light. You might be right. A very clever turning of the tables if it’s true.

Being casual friends with someone like that I could understand maybe. But “best friends”? Best? Really? No, I don’t think so. Doesn’t work

And yes, if he knows that revealing this will cost him this friendship, he knows exactly how much this means to his “friend”

*yawn*

And being friends with an obvious idiot who believes such ridiculous lies is any better? If he explained his position that way, I wouldn’t let him even finish his “argument”, but walk away mid sentence

“If all penguins were homosexual the species would go extinct.”

“If all humans were too fat to copulate the species would go extinct”.

The USA seems set on a path to attempt a proof of this. But what’s your point?

Biology works on the principle of “close enough”. If enough members of a species produce enough offspring to replace those which die the species continues. At 7 billion, humans have overshot this mark quite handily, despite the 10% who have a same sex preference and the portion who cannot reproduce for other reasons — and despite the fact that about 50000 people per day are needlessly dying because of starvation, disease and the like.

BTW, I hate the way this commenting system screws with formatting. Does anyone know a way around it?

Anyone see this yet?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/20/destinie-mogg-barkalow-bridgewater-state-university-attack_n_1288861.html

Just fucking lovely….

So the guy goes against an upbringing’s worth of brainwashing and being fed questionable moral values, to be someone’s friend?

Good on him.

You make a good argument for ending marriage entirely. I approve.

If all males became Catholic priests the race would die out, too. 

Shannon and all others who play the race card and the like, I understand that it is a proven fact in the atheist community that the most clevererest Christian is just one notch below the dumberest atheist in the world and that your dogma do not allow you to acknowledge a Christian refuting any of your beliefs.

I therefore provide below an atheist’s explanation on why yous guys ought to stop playing the race card (and other similar cards for that matter – that bit was added by me so just ignore it, write it of as ‘spoken by a Christian, unworthy of consideration’):
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100137861/it-is-moronic-to-compare-opposition-to-gay-marriage-with-opposition-to-interracial-marriage/

I further understand that he could be branded a heretic but at least hear the man out, I mean he is an atheist, he must have been intelligent at one point in time or something.

Not that I’m buying into your weird and ill-defined notion of biological inferiority, you understand, I’m just pointing out where that would seem to fail anyway.

Everyone always forgets about bisexuals.

 Idiotic atheists exist by the truckload. Idiotic arguments, like the one you linked to, likewise exist. Though atheists by and large tend to be more enlightened on this issue than many of the religious, that of course is not always the case.

The argument that same-sex marriage creates a “new institution” wheras interracial marriage did not is simply laughable. The author hilariously tries to argue that though there were always interracial couples but not gay couples is so blatantly untrue that it seems almost impossible to believe the author didn’t know that. People used to say that interracial marriage would “pervert” marriage as well, and was unprecedented etc. etc. Same damn arguments, and they still make no sense. Incidentally, even if something like that WERE unprecedented (unlike, say, polygamy or child marriage, that have a long history) that would not make it wrong. Tradition or the lack thereof are no justification for anything.

 I agree that coming out is the most politically important act that an LGBT person can do, but we need to emphasis the importance of coming out AND acting like a normal and pleasant human being. Don’t give bigots any further ammo by being anything but nice….If someone gets a bad vibe from a gay person, they’ll go, “See? Gays are different, and that’s why they shouldn’t have equal rights.” Probably the single person who has done the most to improve LGBT relations with the general population is Ellen Degeneres. She is out, but she doesn’t make a big deal out of it, and she is just a wonderful person. Seriously, if she can get Bill O’Reilly to say something supportive of LGBT people, then she’s doing something seriously right.

It’s just like being an atheist….Absolutely come out, but also try to be a pleasant person at the same time. Atheists get a bad rap because too many of the open atheists are also openly disdainful and unpleasant to anyone who is a believer (which is most other people). When we come out, we need to emphasis that we are good, generous, caring, loving, and NORMAL.

Lol, I make that mistake too sometimes.

Jeezoids.  Where do these stereotypes come from?  It would never even occur to me to think women were inferior at math and science.  My female tutor saved my ass in 12th grade Calculus.

I don’t think the cleverest Christian is a notch below the dumbest atheist.  Not at all.  Some of my closest friends and many of the people I look up to for influence and inspiration are Christians, and still more are religious folks of other stripes.  I value these people infinitely more than the 16-year old brat who goes around posting “F@$^ CHRISTIANS” on message boards.

Well some people are intolerant like you.

He wasn’t talking about couples. He was talking about the institution of marriage. Is it your claim that the institution of homosexual marriage in western society has always existed? Interracial marriage has, and was specifically outlawed after the fact and for certain races only. His claim that some people are ignorant of history rings true despite you calling him an idiot where in fact it seems you are in the wrong.

Ignorance and idiocy are two entirely different things. Maybe you have facts on your side that He and I are ignorant of, but calling him an idiot only makes it look like you can’t make a good case. So far you have failed because you didn’t address his claims. He backed his arguments with factually correct statements that addressed his opponents arguments. try doing the same.

Really how?

I didn’t. It’s also possible that homosexual genes are adaptive if they consist of only a portion of the gene pool. They however play a subservient role in that case.

The point is that it is NOT unreasonable to view homosexuality as an inferior attribute, and undesirable, just like being blind is objectively inferior. It’s the author of the article who is getting confused between a single attribute and the entire human, not me. It seems that quite a few of the commenters are confused on this issue also. Thinking that this would force one not to be a true friend to someone who has an inferior attribute.

The issue of partial inferiority on single attributes, overall individual inferiority or superiority, or anyone’s opinions on such is totally orthogonal to friendship. You guys are totally confused. I think in part because you confuse recognition of specific inferiority with bigotry. Recognizing that a blind person is inferior are driving a car is not the same as assuming someone can’t drive because they are a woman.

I didn’t say it would cause the human race to die out. Stop taking stupid positions on my behalf. Your complaint of a straw man is itself a straw man.

What the hekk are you
talking about i showed
my mom and dad and
they don’t even know
what are talking about