Dan Savage Points Out the Hypocrisy in the Bible… So Young Journalists Walk Out on Him

Oh my those students are really something. “But he read those passages of the bible wrong, i’m so out of here”

I disagree only with the assertion that “pansy-assed” was anything short of the *perfect* description of those idiot Christians. Right on, Dan!! 🙂

Not even reading the passages verbatim without interpretation would’ve kept those offended students in their seats, because they’re hiding from the obvious: the Bible is full of errors that must be exposed and questioned.

Hemant, you are way off base on this one.  Your reaching across the aisle response to Savage’s tone is just plain silly.  There is no reasoning with these brainwashed bigots (em, students) and they would have probably walked without expletives.  They walked because of criticism.  You’re falling into the tolerate the intolerant trap, employing the rather cowardly “but I respect is right to say it” pseudo-supportive “tone” in your post.  I hope there was a participation grade assigned to attending the talk.  These disrespectful students would have all earned a zero.    

I agree that he probably shouldn’t have called them pantsy asses and that the bullshit comments were excessive, but if these kids couldn’t put up with Dan’s other comments than they would have also walked out of a biblical studies class.  I am sure their heads would spin if they realized there are two creation myths in genesis, once with Adam and Eve and one without. 

I agree but the revulsion stems from a bible-based Puritanical attitude in this country toward sex and it’s the bible thumpers who act on their revulsion with the support of the bible through bullying and assault on gay persons.

I think our good hosts gets it right.  You can make a point about bullying without becoming one yourself.  For all those saying they don’t care about how he treated those that are obviously disliked, well, there you go.  If it’s only wrong when it applies to those you care about, then it’s never really wrong, just something you don’t like because it applies to to something you care about.  If an adult got up and spoke to young homosexuals in the same way, would folks say ‘oh well, they have to learn to take it, no problem that I see’?  If not, then therein lies the problem.

Sounds to me this man was really pushing his own agenda under the guise of teaching students about journalism.Why would a teacher think it appropriate to use rude and derogitory language in a school setting,he should be more professional,hes not a student,he was looking for a reaction or to have a dig.He did come across as a bully[even if hes not] A more mature person would have been able to get the same message across even using the same examples without the reaction he got by better presentation.The students walking out was the story that got the coverage,so no it wasnt bad journalism,it was poor teaching

Please, educate me which cultures ‘disallow’ homosexuality AND where there isn’t a religious reason basis to this?

I disagree, the root causes of anti-gay bigotry is the innate revulsion (solidified by culture) most people have towards sexual practices, particularly homosexual practices; and, the innate tendency for people to mix up disgust and immorality.

If that were true, why isn’t there charges of ‘immorality’ against old people or ugly people?

Surely if homophobes were motivated by ‘revulsion’ primarily, we would see similar bigotry towards old/ugly people who are romantically involved…….

and yet, we don’t.

 All of those who walked out should be ashamed of themselves. Hopefully some are.

Innate revulsion? That’s a pretty radical statement. Do you have any references?

Sorry DG you’ve got it wrong again. In many cultures hosexuality is/was tolerated or even celebrated ie Two Spirited peoples of NA or the third gendered of India.
So while biblically influenced cultures may not have special claim to homophobia, that neither excuses the bible nor makes homophobia natural or “innate”.

You probably should find out if your assumptions are right before spitting out terms like “innate.”

There are, and historically have been, numerous cultures around the world that have no revulsion over sexual practices, including homosexual ones. It’s remarkably easy to see drastic differences between sexual mores among different cultures, which pretty much destroys the “innate” bit. I assume you haven’t ever heard of National Geographic?

Hell, sex is the major selling point in advertising throughout the world! This is kind of hard to miss. Unless you’re trying…

I think you missed the point. He was talking about bullying. What better way to give a visceral understanding of what bullying IS to a group of over-privileged, arrogant bible worshipers than to give them a taste of what it is really like. I would hope that, when those students have a chance to think past their indignation, at least SOME of them would get the point; maybe through dialog with their colleagues who stayed.
Mind you, I don’t know for sure if this was his intention, but if not it should have been! 😉

 + 1000!

I think what Dan was seeing is the exposure of that dirtly little secret in Christianiy, that is that most Christians haven’t actually read the Bible.  I run in to this all the time, so it’s usually my first question. “Have you actually read what’s in there?”

So you would be OK with someone addressing a group of homosexuals using the same language and tone?  If kids in a high school hallway speak to homosexuals using the same words and tone, you would not consider that bullying?

I apologize for not having them at hand, and neither can I recall where I might have seen them.

I can only vaguely remember having heard or read something along that line in Steven Pinker’s books (The Blank Slate or The Stuff of Thought).

I have to agree.  Those kids and their parents know who he is.  Can’t prove it of course but I think they were coached to walk out.  In the point of view I saw it started as soon as the word bible came out of his mouth.  For kids that are supposed to be journalists they’re making a pretty bad job of it.

 I think you’re missing the point. “Pansy” in this context implies weakness. He’s not saying that the people that left are gay, or like gay people. He’s saying they react in a weak, lame, cowardly way.

It’s not even about them being religious. It’s about them walking out in a huff when someone says they don’t need to follow ancient books to the letter.

I can see that, but in our present cultural context, if you were a homosexual journalist attending such an event, and someone got up there and went to town on homosexuality, and you recorded it, then the MSM would likely run with it and you’d have a scandal.  Compare to this.  Savage has said darn near similar things on CNN.  No scandal.  Because to say anything you want against people who oppose non-heterosexual normality is acceptable in our modern cultural context.  While to say the exact same thing against homosexuality will get about two weeks of MSM specials about hate and bigotry in America.  So I can see why those walking out figured it was no use.  That staying would do no good. 

If those homosexuals were guilty of driving other kids to suicide because of a deeply flawed belief system, then I would have absolutely no problem with it.  As it is, that doesn’t happen.

Because to say anything you want against people who oppose non-heterosexual normality is acceptable in our modern cultural context. While to say the exact same thing against homosexuality will get about two weeks of MSM specials about hate and bigotry in America.

I will re-state the above using a different ‘maligned group’……

“Because to say anything you want against people who oppose black normality is acceptable in our modern cultural context.  While to say the exact same thing against being black will get about two weeks of MSM specials about hate and bigotry in America”

Who here would argue that the above is ‘bad’?   So why should we react any differently because we’re talking about homosexuality instead of race?

We’ve come to vehemently despise racist comments/ideology……and we’re on our way with homosexuality, but aren’t quite there yet.

Pansy: 1) Any of various plants of the genera Achimenes or Viola, especially V. tricolor or its hybrids, having flowers with velvety petals of various colors. 2) Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual man or for a man or boy who is considered effeminate.

Which of the above definitions do you think that Dan Savage is referencing when he’s using the term “pansy-assed” to mean “weak/cowardly” Paul?

So let me get this straight… These Moderate to Liberal Christians teens who voluntarily came to see an openly gay speaker and were most likely supportive of his cause. They were the ones who bullied him all his life??? HMMMmmm, so I guess it supports his anti-bully cause to attack and make fun of them for their beliefs.

How many hearts and minds do you think he changed for the better? How many people who were sympathetic to him do you think he turned against Gays and Atheists. How many will those people go on to hurt because they were verbally abused by a (whatever class of bigot they file him under).

Yes, he was being a bigot towards a group he doesn’t support or care for. Wouldn’t a rational lecture with these young minds have been a better approach for his goals? Better than a surprise bait and switch that will only create enmity and anger. Atheists are continually portrayed and angry, hateful and untrustworthy. Nothing like furthering that stereotype is there?

I wondering how proud his religious parents are? You know the ones he claims to love.

Yes yes one thousand times yes. He does not owe them apology. Stand your ground with these little miscreants.

And this side discussion takes away from the fact that we are trying to stop bullying.

Horse pucky.

I can completely support the general point and work that Dan Savage is doing (and I do, I’m one of his biggest fans/supporters) AND express a valid criticism of terminology he uses……

they’re not mutually exclusive endeavours.

It would be nice to have a wider camera angle to see if they were making a point of walking in front of the camera.  Sure looked like they were, but maybe that was the only exit.

so because of two words, we are going to ignore the entire 90 MINUTE lecture? wow…

(Yes i know you mentioned that in the piece, but still…)

BTW: Pansies? Some of the hardiest plants in the garden. I’ve had pansies blooming IN A POT, outside, through freezing cold. It’s unfortunate that they have this stigma; pansies are actually, how you say, bad-ass!

OK.  I’ll mark down one ‘yes, bullying and hateful speach are OK, as long as they are aimed at the right type of people.’ 

Again, if you are 100% sure that you are 100% right, that your truth is the only acceptable truth, and that all competing truth claims are by definition evil, hateful, and stupid, then there’s no problem at all.  It’s what humans have always done, not that silly post-60s notion of love, harmony, tolerance, and diversity.  Thank goodness we’re past that, wouldn’t you say?

I think you should study a bit more about that before making blanket statements since precisely homosexual acts were seeing as normal in ancient chinese culture (and the japanese copied form them) and it wasn’t until western (with their chritian morality) influence started seeping in that homsexuality and homosexual acts becaming inmoral. As for sources, you can always check the wikipedia articles on homsexuality in China and Japan.

You nailed it, Rich.

No, it’s my summary of how people stand up to it.  Understanding that it is NOT some irrefutable scientific fact that being gay is the same as being black, this is still resting on the values and beliefs of substantial segment of the population. 

As for the rest, of course.  Liberalism in the 70s and 80s was all about live and let live.  Gay rights didn’t rise up like this, it rose up in a decade where people were convinced there were no real absolute morals and values, that society had no right to legislate morality, or force conformity to a ‘normal’ value system, that freedom and a free society meant everyone learning to live and let live, agree to disagree.

I’m merely pointing out that this incarnation of liberal enlightenment seems to have gone the way of the butter churn, and many who come out of that tradition seem the happier for it. 

For my part, they are right.  It was always ludicrous to attempt a completely open and tolerant society where everyone just accepts everyone else.  A lie. A dream.  Whatever.  At least the modern incarnation of progressive thought, with a zeal and assurance of its own moral superiority and infallibility, is truer to what humans typically believe:  There is only room for one moral truth in this country partner, and you had best know you reject this absolute truth at your own risk.  Because how we treat you when you don’t conform is, well, going to be justified by the simple fact that not to conform is evil and hate defined.  And we all know where those to things must end up.  

That’s all I’m saying.

I acknowledge what Hemant and AxeGrrl are saying, but the sentiment kind of falls flat for me. Anti-gay sentiment and bullying based on scriptural references, needs to be ridiculed and disavowed in the strongest terms. It IS bullshit. It IS pansy-assed. It is cowardly, dishonest, contemptible and wicked. It is hypocrisy of the highest order. The ways those smug little shits walked out ‘in defense of their faith’, says a great deal about the nature of that faith. It is weak minded and crass. I know the definition of bullying casts a pretty wide net now, but this talk should not be included in it. They need to understand that some of their beliefs are unsustainable, capricious, and down right stupid. Religious justification is the final barrier to eliminating institutionalized homophobia as something acceptable.

Pansies? Some of the hardiest plants in the garden…..It’s unfortunate that they have this stigma; pansies are actually, how you say, bad-ass!

Then they’re suffering the same ignorance-based stigma that “pussy” does! 🙂

It always makes me giggle when someone uses the word “pussy” to mean “lame/weak”……..rrrrrright…….let’s see, it can accommodate fists, cocks of all sizes, it can kick out a 10lb baby (and bigger:) and withstand jackhammer-esque pounding…….

to anyone who gets called a “pussy”, I say: 

smile, knowing that the person who called you that inadvertently just decreed you to be tough-as-nails 🙂

That’s, of course, your beliefs and opinions.  And that’s fine. What I’m getting at rather, is that set of comments that appears to suggest that such hateful, abusive language and attitude is fine, as long as it’s done by the right person for the right reason.  That would be no different than anything done in the past that we figure to be bad.  It’s not like religious people burning women at the stake for witchcraft didn’t look at American Indians and condemn their ways as torture.  History is filled with people doing the same exact thing that they condemn in others.  And seldom has it ever turned out for the better, no matter how worthy the initial cause.

Not to mention my house cat.  He’s a stone cold killer.

And that’s fine.  If you’re willing to accept folks using such words and phrases and attitudes about homosexuality and speaking to homosexuals, then that’s at least consistent.

If you think it’s right in one case, but not the other, then you’re simply declaring your values system to be exclusive and superior and the basis upon which treatment and attitudes toward individuals should be measured.  OK.  That’s pretty much the history of humanity there. 
It’s one or the other. Oh, and it’s hardly a problem that I stand my ground when you more or less point out that everyone answering me is doing the same. 🙂

Looks to me like it was a planned walkout. It started after the first utterance of the word “gay,” before he even got to the bible stuff.

Probably just another political stunt to get supremacists to be seen as the victim.

It’s almost as if they planned on walking out.

I actually like his use of “pansy-assed”. Pansy has long been associated with effeminate men and weakness.  It is heartening to see a gay man reclaim the word and apply it to the bigots who lack the strength to even face an outspoken and strong gay man.

The irony is not unnoticed.

And, the Scotsman arrives.

 Sorry but there’s no truth in religion.

 DG, telling someone that their views are wrong, hurtful, or even dangerous is quite far from anything any sane person would consider bullying. Even if this is done often and with regularity, even hostility, it is not bullying in any way. All that is being done is talking about something someone thinks. What is being done is simply pointing out (even laughing at) fallacious logic, erroneous thought processes, or even flawed premises.

This is what is done when atheists criticize christianity and the bible. We are saying nothing of the people who adhere to the philosophy surrounding it’s belief, other than perhaps that we believe their logic is flawed. This is not an insult so much as a correction.

This is different when it comes to homosexuality though, because homosexuality is not an idea, thought process, nor premise. Homosexuality is a state of being. There is plenty of evidence that shows homosexuality is primarily genetic. Behavioral, genomic, even neurological studies support this.

Arguing against homosexuality is arguing against a person. Stating that homosexuality is evil is stating that a person is evil. Anything a person can say about homosexuality is a statement about every single homosexual as an individual. Telling homosexuals that their sexual thoughts and behavior are wrong, but they themselves are fine, is just an evasion to make the speaker feel better about their hate speech. This is why it can be, and often is, considered bullying.

Conflating a state of being with a thought process or premise (such as christianity) is “comparing apples to oranges”, as the saying goes. I believe this is also what they call an “equivocation fallacy.”

I tend to avoid inflammatory terms or swearing when trying to persuade people, but in this case, I would not have changed a word of Dan’s remarks. They fit well with the strength of his statement, and they fit well with the principle of not mincing words that he has come to represent.

You’ll notice in the video that the first student who walked out did so before he used the word “bullshit,” starting a trend to make a statement with the concomitant peer pressure often seen among groups of young Christians, and those who fled had all left before he used the phrase “pansy-assed.”

The people who walked out are not journalists. They’re thin-skinned  Christian teenagers accustomed to their privilege, who don’t have the courage or integrity necessary to be actual journalists. If they don’t end up going into some other line of work, like say, Sunday School Teacher, they might be able to work for Fox News. But their bosses will expect them to actually sit through the speeches they don’t like before they do the Murdock spin. Poor things.  Life can be so tough.

Again,

You should get one of your friends to screw your daughter straight.

I dont think so Rich,ive been in church all my life and never heard a sermon on homo sexuallity[or abortion for that matter]We have a neighbour whos had a sex change who comes to all the community events and goes to church, people dont understand his choice but still love and include him,and i live in a small catholic community set up in the 50s as a self susstaind catholic community,carnt get more insular than that.The only time gays are mentioned is when they are agressively pushing some issue in parliment.That is what was wrong with this mans presentation,he was pushing his agenda.Suicide is a complex issue,to blame it on christians not agreeing with homosexuallity is rubbish,its people despondent at themselves who see no future,thats why i think the highest rate of suicide age group in Australia is men over 85.If you go to a middle eastern country they dont get hung on a fence but by the neck, now theres lack of support right there.To say sex between inderviduals hurts no one ignores the aids eperdemic in Africa and Asia which has now spread to the hetrosexual community from their low moral standard.Western countries may have controled it to a large extent but there are a lot of people still affected by it.Its true very few churches are pro gay but it is also true very few are anti gay,[as in the person] My neice is gay and she is loved dearly, but my agnostic brother is devistated,go figger

I think he’s a hypocrite for using the term “pansy-assed.” But “bullshit?” That wasn’t directed at Christianity, or the Bible as whole — that was directed at a very small subset of things the Old Testament says, things that any remotely moral person should be perfectly comfortable calling out as utterly reprehensible bullshit. How can that be “anti-Christian” unless a significant proportion of Christians actually think that what the Bible says about those topics is NOT bullshit? That’s a pretty damning admission on the part of Christians.

“The kids who walked out of that room weren’t “proud Christians.” They were bad journalists.” – Couldn’t agree more.

ive been in church all my life and never heard a sermon on homo sexuallity

Exactly my point.  Many Christian Churches are actively anti-gay.  A great many more, like yours, have their fingers in their ears singing “LA LA LA Not my problem! Not my problem!”

And a few speak out explicitly in support of gay rights.

Suicide is a complex issue,to blame it on christians not agreeing with homosexuallity is rubbish,its people despondent at themselves who see no future

Yes, it’s complex.  And no by no means is it only Christians hating someone because of what they think their own personal God said, while ignoring what their God said about many other things.

But the reason many gay teens are so depressed is not because they’re gay.  It’s because they are demonized for who they are.

I don’t know if you can watch it where you are, but if you can, I’d encourage A Class Divided in which a teacher teaches kids about bigotry by making up brown eye/blue eye divides in the class.  You can make a person depressed by applying group pressure against them.

That is what was wrong with this mans presentation,he was pushing his agenda.

His ‘agenda’ was that people use the bible to support anti-gay bullying.  To make his point, he said that people also used to use the bible to support slavery.  Agree or not on the bible’s position on slavery (we’d beaten that horse to glue), I hope you’d agree that the bible was used in that way.  And the bible talks about slavery a lot more than about homosexuality.  At least about male homosexuality.  It’s silent on female homosexuality, and yet people still bully lesbians.

If you go to a middle eastern country they dont get hung on a fence but by the neck

a) I was referring to Mathew Shepherd, who ended up as dead as if he’d been hung by his neck- it just too longer.  b) as I pointed out, I’m talking about America.  Make it ‘any Christian majority nation’ if you like.  Islam has its own evils to answer here, but there aren’t enough Muslims in America right now to bother any gay kid.  If you want to defend yourself, or your Church or your religion, saying “ya, but they’re worse” isn’t an argument.

aids eperdemic

Really?  From the Church that until 1.5 years ago had the official position that condoms should not be used, even for the purpose of preventing the spread of AIDS?  Sorry, that’s deflecting.  Point is, gay sex doesn’t have to be any less safe than heterosexual sex. And today AIDS is a decidedly non-biased disease.  It’ll take anyone, so really, it’s the sex that’s dangerous.  And that lesbian sex that the bible never mentioned is safer than heterosexual sex.

from their low moral standard

I’m not sure who’s moral standard, and what part you’re calling immoral.  But if you’re talking about promiscuity, but for the fact that gay people in some places have to be a lot more secret about it which lends itself to short secret relationships rather than open (as in not hiding) long term relationships, gay people are no more promiscuous than straight people.

very few are anti gay,[as in the person]

 Hating the sin but loving the sinner is still evil if the person’s ‘sin’ is an innate part of their character.  It’s like loving the left handed person as long as they don’t write with their left hand, and telling them that their desire to do so is a sin.

I agree with everything you said except your point about tone. First, the students who walked out would likely have left even if he hadn’t used those words. Second, I don’t see what’s wrong with him calling using words like “pansy-assed” and “bullshit”. There’s nothing inherently wrong with swearing.

Did you watch the video? Notice the loud cheering and clapping at the end. Most people there agreed strongly with him

FTW!

Mods here not into differing views?  Deleted my comment with an opposing view. Typical.

Please seek help for your problems people.  Goodnight mods…

Bravo, Deven 🙂

stand tall and strong.

I AM standing tall and strong

I AM being bold

That’s fucking precisely  what pussies DO, you twit 🙂   perhaps what you need to do is uh, acquaint yourself with more pussy to understand that 😉

Thanks for this, Rich 🙂   Here’s what Dan says:

“I would like to apologize for describing that walk out as a pansy-assed move. I wasn’t calling the handful of students who left pansies (2800+ students, most of them Christian, stayed and listened), just the walk-out itself. But that’s a distinction without a difference—kinda like when religious conservatives tells their gay friends that they “love the sinner, hate the sin.” They’re often shocked when their gay friends get upset because, hey, they were making a distinction between the person (lovable!) and the person’s actions (not so much!). But gay people feel insulted by “love the sinner, hate the sin” because it is insulting. Likewise, my use of “pansy-assed” was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.”

And that, right there, is yet another reason I fucking love Dan Savage.  He’s secure enough to acknowledge his own potentially questionable tactical choices if/when made aware of them……..

strong, secure, courageous……he’s a regular pussy, he is 🙂

 So you’re saying that parent endorsed serial rape of a child is OK, as long as the parents “truth claim” says that homosexuality is hurtful in some way?

What the hell is wrong with you? Are you that myopic or deluded by your own lack of a fact filter that you try to spin whatever it is to suit your own vile needs?

Unfortunately, they’re TYPICAL journalists these days.

The pledge promoted by “It Gets Better” calls on supporters to “speak up against hate and intolerance” whenever witnessed, whether at school or at work. “Everyone deserves to be respected for who they are,” the pledge reads.

Yet he called the students who left “pansy-asses.” Isnt that bullying?

Seriously. Step back and read what you just wrote. I though this site was for people who are rational thinkers. I understand that I topic might strike up some passion, but this is just pure emotional response. Please, name one student that you saw walk away and tell me how they are over-privileged. I won’t hold my my breath though. Name one specific person that you watched in the video and give evidence that you have knowing that they are arrogant. The burden of proof is now on you since you made the claim right? Good luck. I don’t want assumptions either. I don’t want an explanation to fill in the gaps. I want proof!This whole thread is ridiculous. To summarize, the majority of the people here want to teach Christians a lesson because all of them are bullying gays, therefore everyone who is gay, atheist or a combination should bully the Christians back. Yep, because that’s what the voice of reason says. Good without God? Explain to me what about this attitude is good in the eyes of society and not just your own personal view. Thanks.

Then why can’t a six year old go to a rater R movie by themselves?

I’m calling you out on this one. Go back to the posts that were made concerning Dawkins speech about mocking Christians for their beleifs. There was a lot of talk about not respecing Christians not to be confused with not respecting their views. There was unequivocal, unapologetic insults thrown at several Christian posters.

Acting on one’s sexual urges is indeed a thought process. Sadly one that most people do not engage in before a couple of teenagers get together and one ends up pregnant before they are ready to take on that responsibility.

Did anyone in that crowd try to bully Dan before his speech?

 That’s a red herring, and you know it.

The main point is that there is strong evidence showing that homosexuality has many genetic and physiological components. Since there is no way for someone such as you or I to tell whether or not this person is truly gay by birth, the default position is to assume that they are. Until you have solid evidence otherwise, such as a brain scan or DNA sequence, claiming they choose it is a flawed argument. Even then, not everything about homosexuality is known and so we can’t say for sure a negative scan or DNA sample is definitive. There could be genes or brain structures connected to homosexuality as yet unknown that this person would test positive for.

Actually, I think those students just wanted to catch the final episode of House, so they left a little early.  Complete misunderstanding.

Because your average rated R movie has a hell of a lot more in it than a few swear words.

But mostly because the rules set up by the MPAA are greatly set by the input of moviegoers and those people state they don’t want their children watching a movie with that type of content in it. Movies with swearing that have lower than a rating of PG tend to get them a lot of complaints, so they relegate movies with swearing (among many other criteria) to PG-13 or higher.

Keulan is saying there’s nothing inherently wrong with swearing, and that’s true. Any value placed upon those words is entirely subjective, either positive or negative.

If there is nothing wrong with it then why would a parent care if their children watch a movie with swearing in it? 

You are telling me that there is nothing wrong with it. Society in general says that there is. Why does a child get in trouble when he swears at school?

why are they listening to only THAT part of the Bible 

Heck if I know.

although I suspect what you’re trying to say is that most Christians really are listening to other parts.  I think Dan’s point, and mine, is that they’re not IGNORING a couple of passages, like they do vast other areas of the Bible.  Nobody- even Fred Phelps, really follows the Bible word for word.  So if you can explain away being born into slavery (Exodus 21:4) then surely you can ignore Leviticus 18:22.

 Do you know what subjective means? It means that the interpretation of something is not set in stone, but is determined by the individual experiencing it. Whether or not a swear-word is offensive is a subjective matter, meaning some people find them offensive and others don’t.

This means that there is nothing intrinsically, inherently, objectively wrong with a swear-word. I don’t care if my child watches a movie with swearing in it, but others do. I personally don’t think the words piss, suck, or damn are offensive at all and don’t care if my children of any age say them, others do. That is a textbook example of a subjective circumstance.

This is all that Keulan and I are saying.

 In logic, the “default position” is the position that can most readily be assumed given the currently available evidence on any given topic. Without contradictory evidence, the default should always be assumed. I admit, I didn’t look very hard to find those articles, and there are definitely many articles that could have been better. This doesn’t change the fact that even a cursory search of the internet for scholarly articles (or even reviews/blogs of scholarly articles for those of us without subscriptions) will bring up an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the genetic argument for homosexuality. Therefore without evidence to the contrary the most logical assumption, or the default position, is genetic influence. I wish I could believe that you don’t look down on people who you think choose to be gay, but your previous statements to others imply otherwise.

From Fallacy Files: “a ‘red herring’ argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy,” such as your insertion of Christianity to an argument which had nothing to do with it, but I can’t help biting on that one anyway. (mixed metaphor, sorry)

Another aspect of the default position is that when there is no evidence, the default is to not believe it. You imply that the existence of a god could arguably be considered a default position in terms of theology, but since there is zero evidence for any (supernatural) gods whatsoever, the default position of any theological argument is disbelief. This includes the argument of the creation story. Until there is any valid objective evidence of the creation story, at all, the default position must be disbelief.

No. I completely disagree with your first point. For me personally, because I cannot speak for others, I do not judge people due to the sin that they are trapped up in. 

Yes, I see being gay as a sin. But being trapped by gambling is a sin. Being trapped by lust and pornography is a sin too. Not one singe sin is different than another when it comes to the condition of the heart. Some sins might effect other people and some may not. That’s fine, but that’s also not what the measuring stick is judging. It can all be rolled into a single category, rebellion. I’m not gay, but I’ve stuck in other sin patterns. I’m guilty too.  I am no better than anyone else. 

I am not judging by pointing out someone’s sin. I don’t call people out constantly on it. For my gay friends, we’ve had that conversation in depth once. Since then we might start to talk about it, but NEVER do I try to bully them or try to demean them or make them feel like less of a person. I try and treat them the same way, probably even better, than I would a habitual speeder. A speeder’s actions could potentially harm other people so if anything I would get on their case even more. 

My point is, according to the Bible, we are ALL sinners. That leaves me no room to look down on someone because of their sin. I’m in the same boat. I have Christian friends who are gay. I have Christian friends who fall short in different areas of their lives too. I treat them as the same. It doesn’t matter what rule is being broken, the fact is that all of us have and continue to break God’s rules. I just try to point that out to my friends when I see it and they do the same for me. It’s called accountability and is a beautiful thing!

If I held a negative view about someone based off of who they are, yes that would be evil. I have never seen actual evidence that being gay is genetic. I know scientists have/are looked at that, but there has been no proof. I would argue that’s it’s a decision that can be influenced by one’s environment. 

My wife has a cousin who enjoyed what his father sadly considered to be feminine interests. So, his abusive dad told him that he was gay. Just about every day he told him what he though about his son. Guess what? He is gay. I cannot say from this one instance that it was the social conditioning alone that caused him to make his decision, but there is no evidence to prove that he was born gay either. 

If people are born gay, then that would make this human condition the first and only time that the Bible says that someone is a sinner because of who they are. Why would that ONE item be chosen? To be honest, the BIble doesn’t actually talk that much about it. It just mentions it a few times and is usually in a laundry list next to other sins.

Could not the same thing about physiological and chemical processes be said about anger and murder. We all get angry right? Not everyone commits a murder or gets in a fight when they are angry though. 

Does that mean if someone gets angry enough to kill we can just chalk it up to biology and move on?

So society’s rules are subjective and really do not mean anything as long as you choose to differ from them? Correct? 

Excuse my ignorance here, could a child or parent get in legal trouble if the child finds their way into a rated R movie? I have no idea if the rating system is just a social norm or a law, but it brings up this question if it is a law: 

Can any law be treated as society’s subjective opinion? 

If the rating system is not legally enforced then my question can be disregarded. Does someone smarter than me know?

Actually, you’re right. I have heard of that argument being used as a defense in murder cases, but it unilaterally fails. The difference is pretty obvious really, murder removes the rights of a person without their consent, specifically their right to life. Excessive anger can lead to violence or abuse, which is also removing rights without consent, causing damage to physical, emotional, or mental health. While these people may just be slaves to their biology (and I stress may, I know of no evidence showing murder has a biological cause), they are still dangerous and should be kept out of mainstream society.

Homosexuality by itself doesn’t remove anyone’s rights. Condemnation of homosexuality, on the other hand, does remove them. Banning gay marriage because it’s “icky” or “sinful” removes a lot of rights inherent in marriage, such as hospital visits and power of attorney when a spouse is ill and unable to make decisions. There’s a key difference there.

Half right again. The rules of society are fluid, and they change and evolve over time. So acting in a way that doesn’t fit perfectly within the bounds of current norms is actually part of the normal system, since that’s how the changes occur in the first place. People ignoring some societal laws and creating others is just par for the course.

I’m no legal expert, but I know that if I were to bring my 4 year old into a rated R movie, no charges would be brought against me. I also know that if I brought somebody elses child to a rated R movie, that childs parent could definitely bring charges against me. I just don’t know which law the charges could be brought under.

Actually any law can be ignored based on the situation. That’s what jury nullification is. The point of a jury is to determine whether or not a person deserves the punishment asked for by the prosecution, regardless of the wording of the actual law. If they don’t believe the person deserves that punishment, they can nullify the law itself for that defendant by ruling them not guilty even if what they did explicitly fits the legal definition of guilt in that case.

You really seem to like red herrings.

Twinkie defense.

 Which is why he apologized for pansy-assed, and not for bullshit.  He admitted an error, and was unequivocal in saying he’d done wrong.  That’s integrity.

@Rich

Give up, man. Anyone who believes in the year 2012 that one can decide to be gay is impervious to facts. That is a position that is quite simply not based in reality and is the type of argument that causes serious harm to gay youth who are despondent over their inability to choose otherwise. Do not encourage him. His position is ignorant, hurtful, and flat wrong, but he cannot be won over by persuasion. Instead, you are just reinforcing his position in his own mind and encouraging him to continue sharing it. Be the bigger person and just walk away.

The Bible is the single biggest collection of garbage works ever pulled on mankind. Its a lie from start to finish, unprovable and politically motivated. If you cannot see that maybe you should go get a copy and read it… Stop arguing, and just go read it. Go read it… It becomes very apparent who the liars and cheats really are after that… Disgusting!

Hi,I am a recovering hypocrite. I was raised around people who threw the words,homo,fagot,and queer,around like they were rubbers in a whorehouse,and I also grew to hate Christians,and a lot of other people ,over time. Not a very nice thing to live with ,knowing I have been that kind of a person. But,I am on my second trip,through a different version of the Bible,now,and I clearly see,where it says things about how being gay,is an abomination. It doesn’t say tie them to trees,and burn them alive or bully them anywhere. God is supposed to be a loving God,even though the bible does have some vicious activity in it. I think the word is still good. Its way better than bullying anyone,whether they be gay,Christian,or Atheist. I’m at a point where I’m still lost. But I know that hate doesn’t feel very good. That’s just my view.