Ethicist stands her ground

[Black Dog]

So you can't have legitimate differences of opinion any more? So long as you are not in complete agreement with the gay agenda you are a homophobe.

First: what constitutes a "legitimate" opinion? If someone believes, for instance, that black people should not be allowed to live in predominatelty white neighbourhoods due to the statisticaly higher incidence of criminality among blacks, is that a "legitimate" opinion? Legitimacy is an abstract and relative concept. I'm more interested in where such opinions come from.

BTW: what is this "gay agenda" of which you speak?

And I guess she is also an anti-semite since she is also opposed to cicumcision.

The depends on what her oppossition is based on.

BTW, I am a homophobe too it appears since I have reservations about SSM.

Apparently.

[Argus]

Someone who believes gays are entitled to equal benefits, both in the workplace and from social programs, who believes that gays should be covered by human rights legislation and believes in civil unions not marriage for gays may well stand accused of believing that gays "are not entitled to the same status and privileges as heterosexuals".

But that doesn't make them a homophobe. Homophobes are people who want to strip gays of any legal protections.

So I suppose a racist is only someone who wants to string the n***ers up? Give me a break.

The problem with this sort of "black and white" view is it allows for no deviation from your own beliefs.

The man who does want to 'string the niggers up" is placed into exactly the same box as the guy who tells a mildly racial joke. Similarly, if you have a difference of opinion about gay marriage, you're exactly the same as guys who go into parks at night to beat up fags. Its a level of fanaticism which allows for no differences of opinion.

[Liam]

The problem with this sort of "black and white" view is it allows for no deviation from your own beliefs.

A conservative making an argument for moral relativism? I thought only liberals believed in shades of grey?

No, someone who wants to lynch people is not in the same category as someone who tells a joke. Not even close. There are shades of grey. Heck, I tell racist jokes but my best friend is black and I tell them in front if him and we laugh about them. I am gay and probably tell more gay jokes than anyone I know. Telling a joke doesn't make someone a racist or a homophobe. What does is what is inside the person's heart.

I'm gay and even I can't say that Somerville is a homophobe, but her opposition to SSM is not logical. It is not based on reason. Perhaps her, as well as WG's, reservations about SSM is just that it defies tradition. That doesn't make the person a homophobe, IMO. It doesn't make her position on the issue correct, but it doeasn't automatically make her a homophobe.

I see a homophobe as someone who has irrationally false beliefs about, hatred of, mistrust of, or fear of gay people as a whole or a gay person as an individual *solely* based on orientation.

[Black Dog]

The problem with this sort of "black and white" view is it allows for no deviation from your own beliefs.

The man who does want to 'string the niggers up" is placed into exactly the same box as the guy who tells a mildly racial joke. Similarly, if you have a difference of opinion about gay marriage, you're exactly the same as guys who go into parks at night to beat up fags. Its a level of fanaticism which allows for no differences of opinion.

It's not black and white at all. There's degrees of bigotry. What form that bigotry manifests itself is one thing, but its bigotry nonetheless. The idea at work behind your defense, that rascism or homophobia is only bad if it manifests itself in outright hostility or violence is wrong. It's the mundane, subtle forms that are more damaging overall.

[Black Dog]

No, someone who wants to lynch people is not in the same category as someone who tells a joke. Not even close. There are shades of grey. Heck, I tell racist jokes but my best friend is black and I tell them in front if him and we laugh about them. I am gay and probably tell more gay jokes than anyone I know. Telling a joke doesn't make someone a racist or a homophobe. What does is what is inside the person's heart.

But how do you know what's inside a person's heart if what comes out of there mouth perpetuates the same old same old?

I'm gay and even I can't say that Somerville is a homophobe, but her opposition to SSM is not logical. It is not based on reason. Perhaps her, as well as WG's, reservations about SSM is just that it defies tradition. That doesn't make the person a homophobe, IMO. It doesn't make her position on the issue correct, but it doeasn't automatically make her a homophobe.

So, her oppossition to SSM isn't logical or based on reason. What's left? Let's go further: suppose its about "defying tradition." Well, what is it about this change that makes it such a jarring, dramatic change? Sommerville said her oppossition to SSM was based on it representing a fundamental shift in the meaning of marriage. Yet it can easily be argued that fundamental shift has already occurred because of evolving social norms and legal changes, like legalized divorce. So either she's missed the boat on the fact that most people, heteros included, no longer define marriage based on the utilitarian considerations of procreation, or she feels that defining marriage as "only a commitment between two people" is okay between heterosexuals and not homosexuals. IOW either she's clueless about modern realities or she has a particular issue with gays.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I'm gay and even I can't say that Somerville is a homophobe, but her opposition to SSM is not logical. It is not based on reason. Perhaps her, as well as WG's, reservations about SSM is just that it defies tradition. That doesn't make the person a homophobe, IMO. It doesn't make her position on the issue correct, but it doeasn't automatically make her a homophobe.

I agree. Just because one believes Somerville's view lack logic does not make her a homophobe. Her presumption that we need to retain hetero-only marriage because of child rearing is a wobbly one given how much marriage has deteriorated as an institution in the last decades.

But, is there an anti-gay animus to her views? I don't see one.

Sommerville said her oppossition to SSM was based on it representing a fundamental shift in the meaning of marriage. Yet it can easily be argued that fundamental shift has already occurred because of evolving social norms and legal changes, like legalized divorce. So either she's missed the boat on the fact that most people, heteros included, no longer define marriage based on the utilitarian considerations of procreation, or she feels that defining marriage as "only a commitment between two people" is okay between heterosexuals and not homosexuals. IOW either she's clueless about modern realities or she has a particular issue with gays.

It's true there has been a fundamental shift in marriage and marital institutions but up until now the concept was still restricted to persons of the opposite sex.

[Black Dog]

I agree. Just because one believes Somerville's view lack logic does not make her a homophobe. Her presumption that we need to retain hetero-only marriage because of child rearing is a wobbly one given how much marriage has deteriorated as an institution in the last decades.

But, is there an anti-gay animus to her views? I don't see one.

Let's take a look again.

It's true there has been a fundamental shift in marriage and marital institutions but up until now the concept was still restricted to persons of the opposite sex.

That's not the point she's making at all. She doesn't (again, whetehr out of ignorance or on purpose, I cannot say) recognize or acknowledge that shift.

"Either marriage represents the inherently procreative relationship between two people, in which case it cannot include same sex couples, or it represents just an intimate, committed relationship between two adults, when it can include opposite-sex and same-sex partners."

If we accept that, for most people, marrigae is "just" a partnership between two people, where was Sommerville's alarmist reaction when that transpired?

Basically, I have a hard time believing that someone who says letting the queers get hitched would be tantamount to abolishing marriage harbours no animus towards gays.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I agree. Just because one believes Somerville's view lack logic does not make her a homophobe. Her presumption that we need to retain hetero-only marriage because of child rearing is a wobbly one given how much marriage has deteriorated as an institution in the last decades.

But, is there an anti-gay animus to her views? I don't see one.

Let's take a look again.

It's true there has been a fundamental shift in marriage and marital institutions but up until now the concept was still restricted to persons of the opposite sex.

That's not the point she's making at all. She doesn't (again, whetehr out of ignorance or on purpose, I cannot say) recognize or acknowledge that shift.

"Either marriage represents the inherently procreative relationship between two people, in which case it cannot include same sex couples, or it represents just an intimate, committed relationship between two adults, when it can include opposite-sex and same-sex partners."

If we accept that, for most people, marrigae is "just" a partnership between two people, where was Sommerville's alarmist reaction when that transpired?

Basically, I have a hard time believing that someone who says letting the queers get hitched would be tantamount to abolishing marriage harbours no animus towards gays.

If you define marriage in terms of bringing into the relationship the necessary reproductive equipment which - when coupled - might produce offspring you will be led to the same conclusion as Somerville. But that is a narrow definition when more and more companionship is the key to a marital relationship. Where Somerville is off-base (and where she, unfortunately, shares a platform with the ding-dongs in the religious right) is to suggest SSM will result in the end of marriage. This is not true. We now have SSM here and no individual hetero marriage has been affected by it and in no way has marriage as an institution been diminshed by it. Marriage as an institution survived the introduction of common law relationships being defined as marriage and it will survive SSM, should SSM continue to exist.

[Liam]

So, her oppossition to SSM isn't logical or based on reason. What's left? Let's go further: suppose its about "defying tradition." Well, what is it about this change that makes it such a jarring, dramatic change? Sommerville said her oppossition to SSM was based on it representing a fundamental shift in the meaning of marriage. Yet it can easily be argued that fundamental shift has already occurred because of evolving social norms and legal changes, like legalized divorce. So either she's missed the boat on the fact that most people, heteros included, no longer define marriage based on the utilitarian considerations of procreation, or she feels that defining marriage as "only a commitment between two people" is okay between heterosexuals and not homosexuals. IOW either she's clueless about modern realities or she has a particular issue with gays.

I still don't know that we can make that assertion. Well, I should say that I don't think I can get on board with calling her a homophobe without knowing more about her and her true feelings, but I understand what you're saying.

Again, I don't think everyone who opposes SSM is a homophobe. Most probably are, but I think it is possible for one to merely be a traditionalist and simply afraid of the unknown that looms out in the future. For those people, I'd say that *any* social change (abortion, tolerance of premarital living arrangements, women wearing pants, whatever...) frightens them and that it doesn't necessarily reflect inner hatred or bias against all gay people.

I also think it is also possible for some people to see marriage as a special union between people of the opposite gender for the purpose of procreation -- even when the couple is infertile or beyond childbearing age, some would probably argue that miracles can happen. Heck, Mary's sister Elizabeth was an old, barren woman yet she managed to give birth to John the Baptsist. I think holding this belief is bizarre in the age of science, and I am not saying it is right, but I can understand that some people may hold that belief.

Based on the Somerville statements I have seen, she seems off the mark because she fails to recognize that modern marriage, particularly after the advent of contraception and abortion, is very different than what it used to be in that fertile married couples can opt to not reproduce. Contraception decoupled (no pun intended) marriage and procreation. Somerville may be masking deep-seeded feelings of homophobia by cloaking them in the speech of traditionalism, but which of us can say what is spin and what is truly held belief?

[Guest Warwick Green]

Again, I don't think everyone who opposes SSM is a homophobe. Most probably are, but I think it is possible for one to merely be a traditionalist and simply afraid of the unknown that looms out in the future. For those people, I'd say that *any* social change (abortion, tolerance of premarital living arrangements, women wearing pants, whatever...) frightens them and that it doesn't necessarily reflect inner hatred or bias against all gay people.

The hot button issues for socons are abortion and SSM. Abortion is the less ideological argument to make - the fetus is a life form and needs legal protection, etc. Opposition to SSM is based on tradition and religion. Today arguing tradition and six-bits with get you half-a-cup of coffee. Religion has fallen so much in disfavor these days that it is of no relevance in public policy debate. Because the arguments against SSM can only be described in less precise terms (read Somerville's stuff - even she does not express herself well) often an SSM argument sounds like homophobia.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Much ado about nothing or is this an example of Harper wanting to avoid criticism from his friends in the religious right?

Harper's plan to skip AIDS forum ‘baffling'

CAMPBELL CLARK AND JEFF SALLOT

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Opposition parties are sharply criticizing Prime Minister Stephen Harper for declining to attend the 16th International AIDS conference in Toronto this summer, calling it a failure of leadership that will discourage other world leaders from attending.

Conference organizers said this week that they had received a letter from the Prime Minister's Office indicating he will not attend, although the major conference is expected to attract several other heads of state and government, along with about 20,000 scientists, health experts and community leaders.

Liberal Leader Bill Graham said Mr. Harper's absence is a disappointment and a missed opportunity to send a message that Canada thinks fighting the disease is important.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...tory/Front/home

[Argus]

The problem with this sort of "black and white" view is it allows for no deviation from your own beliefs.

The man who does want to 'string the niggers up" is placed into exactly the same box as the guy who tells a mildly racial joke. Similarly, if you have a difference of opinion about gay marriage, you're exactly the same as guys who go into parks at night to beat up fags. Its a level of fanaticism which allows for no differences of opinion.

It's not black and white at all. There's degrees of bigotry. What form that bigotry manifests itself is one thing, but its bigotry nonetheless. The idea at work behind your defense, that rascism or homophobia is only bad if it manifests itself in outright hostility or violence is wrong. It's the mundane, subtle forms that are more damaging overall.

Every person is an eclectic mixture of preferences on everything under the sun, especially including people and their expected behaviour. Standards are all over the map, though there is always a median somewhere. The fact one might have preferences which dissaprove of the gay lifestyle or gay behaviour or institutional affects of homosexuality on marriage or child rearing does not make one a bigot or a "homophobe". And I think using that word repeatedly for relatively innocuous people like this tends to rob it of its affect. When almost everyone is a homophobe, to some degree or other, who cares that you call people homophobes? What does it bring but rolling eyes and shaking heads at YOUR intolerance?

I could not possibly care less what gays do to, with or among themselves in their bedrooms. Honestly. They can invite goats and cattle in there for all I care. That doesn't mean I have my doubts when they press for degrees of public acceptance and respect for them not as PEOPLE but as HOMOSEXUALS. I can acknowledge anyone's right to equality to a certain extent (arrogant bastard that I am) but demanding respect is something else again, demanding I acknowledge that your sexual lifestyle is perfectly fine with me means I'm REQUIRED to make a judgement, rather than just ignoring it as none of my business, as I should. And since that lifestyle/behaviour is not something I would ever do (for obvious reasons) how am I suppose to respect and wholeheartedly approve of it?

The idea of kissing a man is repugnant to me, culturally and instinctively. Bleh! Disgusting! I want no part of that. So what? That's my heterosexual judgement. I don't want to kiss goats or gays. I wouldn't be too high on the thought of kissing a 110 year old toothless Calculta street sweeper either. Now given that's part of who I am (and most heterosexual men) why would you not expect me to have some inner disgust at homosexuality and what it implies? But of course, what you do by yourself is not my business and I don't have to care about it - and don't. But don't keep sticking it in my face and demand I give you my repeated assurances on how much I respect and appreciate how perfectly valid and normal it is and how much I respect you for doing it.

Does that make me homphobic? One of the guys running for mayor soon is openly gay and I'm seriously considering voting for him. So just what does homophobia actually entail?

[newbie]

Does that make me homphobic? One of the guys running for mayor soon is openly gay and I'm seriously considering voting for him. So just what does homophobia actually entail?

How about one teaching your kid or leading a boy scout troop?

[Argus]

Does that make me homphobic? One of the guys running for mayor soon is openly gay and I'm seriously considering voting for him. So just what does homophobia actually entail?

How about one teaching your kid or leading a boy scout troop?

I don't trust gays around young boys. That's just the way it is. You can say forever that all those men caught molesting boys were not actually homosexual, but to me, that sounds like saying snow is hot and water is dry.

The evidence is self-evident.

Gay sexual culture is fixated on youth to an even greater extent than heterosexual culture. The younger you appear, the more like a smooth chested boy you are, the more popular you'll be in every gay club, bar and bathhouse. Wild promiscuity and a fixation on very young partners is too much a part of that culture, and even though I acknowledge the unfairness of that towards disciplined, mature gay men who have no interest in adolescent boys it's what the media have wrought.

[Riverwind]

I don't trust gays around young boys. That's just the way it is. You can say forever that all those men caught molesting boys were not actually homosexual, but to me, that sounds like saying snow is hot and water is dry.

The evidence is self-evident.

By the same logic you shouldn't trust straight men around young girls. No matter who you spin it - your statement demonstrates that you have an irrational fear of gay men. Some would describe that irrational fear as 'homophobia'.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I don't trust gays around young boys

There are some gay men who should not be allowed around young boys and there are some straight men who should not be allowed around young girls. Let's not condemn the whole human race on the acts of a few predators.

[sharkman]

I don't trust gays around young boys

There are some gay men who should not be allowed around young boys and there are some straight men who should not be allowed around young girls. Let's not condemn the whole human race on the acts of a few predators.

I believe the percentage of straight men who would like to fool around with young girls is much lower than the percentage of gay men who would like to fool around with young boys. That statement doesn't mean I am scared of gays, it means I feel gay men shouldn't be around young boys in certain situations. Say, like in the showers.

I also believe that with young girl clubs, men aren't in places of authority anyhow. No one's complained that their girl has not been supervised by a man as far as I've heard, and by the same token, young boys shouldn't be supervised by adults who may be sexually aroused by them.

At any rate, the subject at hand is the Boy Scouts, there are no young girls there.

[Black Dog]

The fact one might have preferences which dissaprove of the gay lifestyle or gay behaviour or institutional affects of homosexuality on marriage or child rearing does not make one a bigot or a "homophobe". And I think using that word repeatedly for relatively innocuous people like this tends to rob it of its affect. When almost everyone is a homophobe, to some degree or other, who cares that you call people homophobes? What does it bring but rolling eyes and shaking heads at YOUR intolerance?

It's one thing to have issues with certain aspects of someone elses lifestyle. You don't klike men kissing? Don't kiss men. But when somone wants gays treated differently under the law as a result of their discomfort, I am perfectly willing to call a 'phobe a 'phobe.

I could not possibly care less what gays do to, with or among themselves in their bedrooms. Honestly. They can invite goats and cattle in there for all I care. That doesn't mean I have my doubts when they press for degrees of public acceptance and respect for them not as PEOPLE but as HOMOSEXUALS. I can acknowledge anyone's right to equality to a certain extent (arrogant bastard that I am) but demanding respect is something else again, demanding I acknowledge that your sexual lifestyle is perfectly fine with me means I'm REQUIRED to make a judgement, rather than just ignoring it as none of my business, as I should. And since that lifestyle/behaviour is not something I would ever do (for obvious reasons) how am I suppose to respect and wholeheartedly approve of it?

I don't think anyone is demanding your respect. Most wouldn't givea rat's ass about your opinion. It's an equality issue. So I'm not sure what you're on about.

I don't trust gays around young boys. That's just the way it is. You can say forever that all those men caught molesting boys were not actually homosexual, but to me, that sounds like saying snow is hot and water is dry.

The evidence is self-evident.

See, now i feel comfortable calling you a homophobe.

Gay sexual culture is fixated on youth to an even greater extent than homosexual culture. The younger you appear, the more like a smooth chested boy you are, the more popular you'll be in every gay club, bar and bathhouse. Wild promiscuity and a fixation on very young partners is too much a part of that culture, and even though I acknowledge the unfairness of that towards disciplined, mature gay men who have no interest in adolescent boys it's what the media have wrought.

That doesn't mean gay men are child molesters. Heterosexual culture is also fixated on youth, perhaps not to the same extent, but that doesn't make all heterosexuals watching old Britney Spears videos predators in tha making.

[newbie]

I believe the percentage of straight men who would like to fool around with young girls is much lower than the percentage of gay men who would like to fool around with young boys.

1 in 3 for females, 1 in 4 for males from this site:

http://www.survivorsswindon.com/stats.htm

But the 1 in 4 is not necessarily homosexual, but pedophile or a combination of both.

[Argus]

I don't trust gays around young boys. That's just the way it is. You can say forever that all those men caught molesting boys were not actually homosexual, but to me, that sounds like saying snow is hot and water is dry.

The evidence is self-evident.

By the same logic you shouldn't trust straight men around young girls. No matter who you spin it - your statement demonstrates that you have an irrational fear of gay men. Some would describe that irrational fear as 'homophobia'.

What if it's not "irrational"? What if the statistics showed that gay men were considerably more likely, by an order of magnitide, to have a sexual interest in adolescent boys, than straight men were to have a sexual interest in adolescent girls? Would it still be irrational?

And by the way, straight men are not chosen as girl scout leaders. I think a lot of parents would be doubtful of the wisdom of having young men leading a pack of adolescent or prepubescent girls out into the woods for a campout.

[BubberMiley]

What if it's not "irrational"? What if the statistics showed that gay men were considerably more likely, by an order of magnitide, to have a sexual interest in adolescent boys, than straight men were to have a sexual interest in adolescent girls? Would it still be irrational?

Do you have credible data beyond your hypothetical "what ifs?"

[Argus]

I don't think anyone is demanding your respect. Most wouldn't givea rat's ass about your opinion. It's an equality issue. So I'm not sure what you're on about.

Nonsense. Very few gays will ever get married, and fewer still will stay that way more than a year. The gay community and its backers want gay marriage not out of equality but a sense of respect, a sense of recognition from the community that they are equal, that their relitionships are the same, that they are in no way considered odd or abnormal. It's all about their need for respect from the community.

I don't trust gays around young boys. That's just the way it is. You can say forever that all those men caught molesting boys were not actually homosexual, but to me, that sounds like saying snow is hot and water is dry.

The evidence is self-evident.

See, now i feel comfortable calling you a homophobe.

I have no doubt you have a great deal of comfort in throwing that label around at just about everyone.

Gay sexual culture is fixated on youth to an even greater extent than homosexual culture. The younger you appear, the more like a smooth chested boy you are, the more popular you'll be in every gay club, bar and bathhouse. Wild promiscuity and a fixation on very young partners is too much a part of that culture, and even though I acknowledge the unfairness of that towards disciplined, mature gay men who have no interest in adolescent boys it's what the media have wrought.

That doesn't mean gay men are child molesters. Heterosexual culture is also fixated on youth, perhaps not to the same extent, but that doesn't make all heterosexuals watching old Britney Spears videos predators in tha making.

No, didn't say so. I do think, however, that this fixation in gay culture leads to a considerably higher degree of sexual interest in adolescent and pre-pubescent boys than you'll find in the straight community. I don't know that anyone has ever studied why, though I'd posit that heterosexual adults are seldom interested in females who are not physically developed while the same external sexual characterstics are lacking in adolescent/prepubescent boys.

In any event, I believe that it all leads to a considerably higher danger of sexual behaviour and interaction from gay men with pubescent boys than exists between straight men and pubescent girls. The latter does happen, but normally under the influence of a lot of alcohol.

[Argus]

I believe the percentage of straight men who would like to fool around with young girls is much lower than the percentage of gay men who would like to fool around with young boys.

1 in 3 for females, 1 in 4 for males from this site:

http://www.survivorsswindon.com/stats.htm

But the 1 in 4 is not necessarily homosexual, but pedophile or a combination of both.

The statistics are not comparable.

Most straight men who molest children do so within the family. There we have a close interaction of people, and often under behaviour influenced by drugs or alcohol.

That is not what we're discussing. We're discussing the kind of man who would join the boy scouts, for example, to be around a bunch of pubescent and adolescent boys, in other words, a cold, deliberate sort of stalking. These people are invariably gay (pedophiles who prey on boys are gay, no matter what anyone says to the contrary).

We're also talking about a man who might not have the intention, but could find himself sexually attracted to a young boy under his charge.

And frankly, I'm not even sure that, statistically, you would even have it recorded if gay men preyed on fourteen year olds at the moment. It's not illegal, after all, though it soon will be.

[Argus]

What if it's not "irrational"? What if the statistics showed that gay men were considerably more likely, by an order of magnitide, to have a sexual interest in adolescent boys, than straight men were to have a sexual interest in adolescent girls? Would it still be irrational?

Do you have credible data beyond your hypothetical "what ifs?"

If there WERE such statistics, would that fear be irrational or not?

[BubberMiley]

If there WERE such statistics, would that fear be irrational or not?

No, but it would be a negative overgeneralization. It isn't irrational to be racist either; sometimes it's even prudent: but that doesn't make it a nice thing to do.