Christians, Muslims, and Fear

I was just recalling when Rosie O’Donnell made her incredibly insightful comment about “radical Christianity being just as dangerous as radical Islam” and thinking about how some of the gay protesters are behaving out there right now.  A few of them have ran in and disrupted church services, and of course there was the one lovely incident where some jackass snatched a cross out of an old lady’s hands.

I’m not painting with a broad brush here – the gay community certainly has its share of radical morons, just like any group of people does.  But compare O’Donnell’s comment with reality: Why don’t gay protesters go after Muslims like they do Christians?  I mean, in some parts of the world Muslims execute people for being gay and justify it with their religion.  Regardless of how “dangerous” Ms. O’Donnel thinks those crazy Christians are, she can rest assured that won’t happen here.

Traditional Muslims oppose gay marriage just as much and as vehemently as Chrisitans do.  Granted, Muslims don’t have the political clout that Christians do in this country, but still, their ideology is the same.  It’s a fact that you won’t ever see a gay protestor go into a mosque and disrupt the service, and we all know the reason: Muslims won’t tolerate that shit, but Christians almost certainly will.

I’m not saying Christians are cowards.  I’m saying that like most Americans, they’ve been weaned on multi-culti politically correct nonsense, in which our greatest bogeyman is offending some group or another.  I’m also saying that when someone offends Christians, they don’t burn flags, riot, and kill people.  I never heard of a Mormon stabbing a filmmaker to death for making a movie about kids being abused in polygamist communities (the corollary being the murdered Danish filmmaker whose movie exposed the awful plight of some girls in traditional Muslim households).  I never heard of an elderly teacher being arrested and causing riots for naming a teddy bear “Jesus.”  I also never, ever see Christians cheering in the streets of American cities when innocent Muslims are blown to bits.

When it comes to Islam, the entire Western world seems to be bowing to some sort of culture of fear.  How many American newspapers wouldn’t run the pictures of the Danish cartoon about Mohammed that sparked off riots?  What about the New York Times, who refused to show the cartoon out of “respect,” but then ran a picture of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant shit and pornography the very next day?

I remember this comedy sketch on Mind of Mencia in which a fantasy wrestling match was being set up between the big religions of the world.  Jesus, Buddha, and Shiva all stepped into the ring, but when it came to Islam’s turn, Mohammed was invisible – for the express purpose of not wanting to offend Muslims.  The silliness aside, has there ever been a more succinct and demonstrative way of characterizing the situation?

Bill O’Reilly and A Double Shot at Love

On the show A Double Shot at Love, bisexual twin sisters Rikki and Vikki Ikki (that’s not a typo), are screening a houseful of straight men and gay women for MTV’s latest take on the reality dating genre.  The very premise of the show is enough to have conservatives bleating about the erosion of morals in America.  But there was a traditional guy on the show, at least for an episode or two. This genius signed up for a reality show in which the object is to woo a pair of bisexual girls, and then had the temerity to tell them to their face that he disagrees with gay marriage because it’s comparable to someone marrying a dog.

There’s no better way to get into a girl’s pants than saying that her sexual preference is akin to bestiality.  I mean Christ, what was he even doing on the show?  He might as well have worn a tee shirt saying, “Bisexual chicks are okay to fuck and watch in pornos, but they’re bad for society.”  Needless to say, his honesty didn’t impress the Ikki twins; they gave him the boot soon afterwards.

Here’s what’s funny to me: This jackass, this hypocrite who probably can’t even spell “hypocrite,” made the exact same argument against gay marriage that most every conservative I see on TV makes.  Take Bill O’Reilly (perhaps not a conservative, though certainly a guy with traditional values) for example.  The entirety  of his objection to gay marriage appears to be the slippery slope:  If we let gays get married it would open the door for people who want to marry animals and similar nonsense.

Why is it that so many people who oppose gay marriage are terrified of the slippery slope?  Do they honestly think it’s a strong argument, or is it simply all they have to cling to?  Perhaps if they live in a world of authoritative moral certainty, they can’t stomach the thought of actually making a stand.  Those of us who attempt to let reason guide us welcome the slippery slope.  We don’t mind it because we understand that morality is about choice, not about adherence to authority or tradition.

So the conservatives criticize gay marriage.  They sentence bisexuals, transgenders, and homosexuals to social isolation at best and hell at worst.  They hide their distaste for certain behavior by claiming that it’s “bad for society.”  They continuously shake their head s in disgust at shows like A Double Shot at Love.

Here’s a new reason for them to dislike that show:  It highlighted how absurd and childish their argument against gay marriage is.  A wonderfully concise indictment of their position was made by a couple of bisexual twin girls voting an idiot out of a reality show house – an idiot who is the intellectual peer of Bill O’Reilly and others who oppose gay marriage.  The Ikki twins get major cool points for showing more class and aplomb in this issue than their so-called moral critics ever have.

The Bankruptcy of the Traditional Marriage Argument

I was just thinking about how much time I spend chastising Barack Obama, and how I think John McCain is vastly preferable as our next president.  Yet I’m a social liberal – more liberal than Obama in at least one area.  After all, Obama is against gay marriage (he’s stated that he defines marriage as being between a man and a woman).  Me, I say anyone who’s against gay marriage should mind their own business.

But I’m open to hearing an argument against it.  I would enjoy being convinced that I’m wrong.  So far, other than the absurdity of the religious argument (i.e., gay marriage is wrong because my arbitrary fairy tale says so), I’ve heard three main objections.  The first is that the opponent of gay marriage simply makes some variation of this statement: “For thousands of year, marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman.”

My answer to that is usually: “And?”  Eating three meals a day is also a well-rooted tradition that has been around for thousands of years.  Yet there’s nothing scientific or even healthy about it.  In fact, for optimal health and a more efficient metabolism, science has shown that the body is designed to graze (consume six or seven small meals a day).  Eating three meals a day has no practical value, and if you’re aware that there are healthier options, there’s no practical reason to continue doing it other than social convenience.  On the topic at hand, simply because it’s tradition for marriage to be between a man and woman is not a practical reason for disallowing gay marriage.

The second objection is that traditional marriage is better for a cohesive society (stable homes, nuclear families, etc.).  I would love to hear how the people who voice this argument arrived at their conclusion.  Where’s the evidence?  Where’s the case study?  What about Massachusetts?  Is social cohesiveness dissolving there?  How about in other counties (like the Netherlands)?  Are there studies that show gay people are more likely to get divorced than straight people?

And even if there were, so what?  It’s not the government’s business to tell us what’s best for us.  Don’t you think alcohol, tobacco, and gluttony are much more destructive to a society than gay marriage?  Why don’t we ban those things?  The answer is because adults are free to do what they want in this country, as long as they don’t harm the person or property of another.

The third objection is rather abstract “to protect the kids.”  So far no one has ever elaborated on how gay people getting married is going to hurt children.  I just don’t understand the concern of these “concerned” parents.  Do they honestly think allowing gay people to get married will somehow convert their kids into homosexuality?  In California, there’s whining because a teacher’s association has donated money to keeping gay marriage legal.

The other day I saw a woman on the news voicing her “concern” for the kids.  She never even came close to saying exactly why kids needed protection from gays or gay marriage, but her other admissions were ironic.  Apparently she walks to school with gay couples and their adopted kids.  She has gay friends.  She thinks they should have the exact same legal rights (civil unions) as straight couples.

And yet, allowing them to get married is bad for kids.  How?  What kind of hypocrisy is this?  If she’s fine with them adopting kids, having inheritance rights, grieving rights, the tax break, and so on, what’s the problem with walking down the aisle?  They’ve been legitimized, they’re already a married couple in everything but name, so what line does the ceremony cross?

The Tactful Christian Response to Homosexuality, Part IV

Sometimes I get passionate about topics and use invective to underscore what I see as irrationality.  I try to stay away from ad hominem attacks and insults of any kind – but I generally have no problem calling someone’s argument ridiculous if that’s what I think.  But that’s an attack on their argument, not them.  I think the difference is important.

So it does with this latest attempt by Christians to be “reasonable” in their labeling of homosexuality as a sin.  The main thrust of the proposition is 1) Homosexuality leads to psychological problems like drug use, domestic violence, and unhappy personal relationships, etc., and 2) Since this is risky, self-defeating behavior, it is a sin.

The first point is nothing but an a priori assumption.  The main indicators of things like drug use, domestic violence and unhappy personal relationships are socioeconomic.  They cut across gender, racial, and cultural lines – they certainly cut across sexual lines.

Of course, this point also assumes that being gay is a choice, like one might choose to date irresponsible jerks or alcoholics.  As if gay people should simply refrain from pursuing same-sex relationships because the Christians warn that it might be correlated with risk factors.  Is that supposed to make them lead happier, more successful, less-risky lives?  Repudiate who they’re sexually attracted to?  Ignore who they wish to share intimacy with?  Or are Christians going to hold the position that they’re all delusional, and their “true” sexual orientation just needs to be brought out?

The second point is best summed up in a quote from someone I’ve been arguing with: “Risky behavior which isn’t necessary for greater good is indeed a major category of sin.”

I think a statement like that is ludicrous.  Are people supposed to weigh every risk they take in their lives to see if it coincides with the goal of the “greater good”?  Choosing some dangerous careers aren’t necessary for a greater good.  Skydiving or climbing Mount Everest isn’t necessary for a greater good.  Driving on a busy freeway at rush hour isn’t necessary for a greater good.  Eating butter with your meal every day isn’t necessary for a greater good.  By this rationale, people who do these risky things (all of which are much riskier than being a homosexual) are sinning.  A couple hundred people die every year from fires caused by Christmas lights – am I reaching to call putting up Christmas lights a risk that isn’t necessary for the greater good?

Besides, how do you define the “greater good”?  Are we talking about what is best for society at large?  If so the only two tenents we need be concerned with are: Don’t Victimize Anyone and Be Productive.  That’s it.  Granted, it’s a generalization, but that’s all that’s required for a healthy, stable society.   As long as you’re following those two rules, you’re contributing to the “greater good.”  At the very least, you’re certainly not harming it.

The Tactful Christian Response to Homosexuality, Part III

Recently in a blog I read two more of the Christian justifications for why it’s reasonable – and not just the result of God’s command – to designate homosexuality a sin.

The first is a higher instance of drug use and domestic violence.  This blog tried to create a line of causation, stating that since these issues are symptomatic of “deep mental duress,” they are “an indication of the psychological problems caused by the choices under discussion.”  And this gives, “great weight to the American Psychiatric Association’s original stance on homosexuality as a mental disorder.”

First of all, the American Psychiatric Association reversed that original stance because science – unlike religious dogma – changes when new evidence is presented that suggests an opposing conclusion.

Secondly, drug use and domestic violence are not always symptomatic of anything other than personal choice.  When I was a kid, I was stoned every single day, yet I was never under any “mental duress.”  Poor people have astronomically higher instances of drug abuse and domestic violence.  is it because they’re all suffering from mental disorders?  Sure, why not?  If you play fast and loose with what it means to be under “mental duress,” everyone can use this excuse for everything they do.  No one would have to take responsibility for anything (much like some drug addicts, drunks, and child molesters who claim that they have a “disease” and thus don’t have any choice in the matter).

All gay people are not psychologically damaged.  And to state the obvious, all straight people are not psychologically ideal (whatever that even means).  If we want to discuss the “root causes” of social ills, they run a lot deeper than whether you’re attracted to boys or girls.  And further, if homosexuality is a mental disorder, what the hell is wrong with you Christians?  Are you so incredibly heartless as to designate a mentally handicapped person a sinner?  How can they be sinning if they’re mentally ill?   They have no choice in the matter, right?  They have a psychological disease.

My personal favorite is that homosexuality is bad because gay people can’t biologically reproduce.  This is no joke – this blog actually blamed declining birthrates across the world on homosexuality!  I’ve heard Christians blame secularism and women’s lib for declining birth rates, but this reaches new levels of absurdity.  Nations like Japan, Italy, and Russia (and several European countries) have abysmal birth rates, this is true.  But it’s not because more people are becoming gay; it’s because the heterosexuals aren’t having as many babies as they used to!  Look at the numbers: Family size is decreasing, and the age at which women have babies is increasing.  It is the straight people who have the problem here.  (On an interesting note, in ancient Greece and Rome homosexuality was far more tolerated and widespread than it is today, and yet they managed to increase their populations even while contending with much higher infant mortality rates.)

The blog summated with “Widespread homosexuality could end human history, but even moderate levels can damage the entrepreneurship, innovation, and capital investment associated with growing populations.”

I don’t know how to interpret this incredibly odd statement.  How do homosexuals damage entrepreneurship, innovation and capital investment?  Does being gay make you a Marxist?  And do Christians honestly fear that homosexuality is becoming “widespread”?  They need not.  The only thing that’s becoming widespread is tolerance, and some Christians are behind the curve.

The Tactful Christian Response to Homosexuality, Part II

I’ve said it before, it’s amusing when Christians try to use a reasonable explanation for designating homosexuality a sin.  Some are apparently not content with a simple “because the Bible says so.”  No, they try to use reason to justify their position – or perhaps justify God’s position and say, “See, He was right to proclaim homosexuality a sin!”

I recently read a blog that attempted to be more specific with the supposed causality links between homosexuality and social ills such as higher disease rates, more drug use, more domestic violence, etc.  Number one is the sodomy.  Anal sex puts the participants at a higher risk for infection than vaginal penetration, so this was cited as a reason for why homosexuality is immoral behavior.

Look at the argument this way: Anal sex is immoral because it’s high-risk.  Okay, fine.  But in this case, the immorality disappears if you eliminate (or at least significantly marginalize) the risk.  If the risk of disease is the problem, just get rid of that, and no more sin, right?

Good news for lesbians, then.  All you gay women out there – you’re okay in God’s book!  The same goes for gay men who prescreen each other for diseases before engaging in anal sex.  They’ve taken the risk out of the equation, haven’t they?  Wait a minute, this would also mean that the stars of gay male pornography aren’t sinning!  After all, they have rigorous health codes and check-ups for sexually transmitted diseases.

Additionally, there are plenty of staunchly straight women, even married moms, who engage in anal sex.  Even if the number of heterosexual women who have experimented with sodomy is as low as 5% (for example), we’re still talking about a few million women.  So the tally is this:  Studiously careful gay men, gay male pron stars, and lesbians are not sinning – but soccer moms who engage in anal sex with their husbands are.

As much fun as I’m having with this concept, I have to say that it’s beside the point.  Since when did risky personal behavior become a sin?  Is the amount of risk involved how God determines whether an act is a sin or not?  You know what’s really, reallyrisky?  Eating saturated fat.  Not exercising three times a week.  Driving while below the age of twenty-five.  Speeding.  Smoking.  These are all activities that put you at a huge amount of risk.  Certainly far more people die because of heart disease and auto crashes than because of STDs (contracted from anal sex or not).

So by this rationale – the same rationale that designates sodomy a sin – having butter with your dinner every evening should be a sin.  So should not doing twenty minutes of cardio, or applying for a driving license when you’re sixteen.  Have Christians now placed God in Big Brother’s shoes?  Is there a diet and workout plan hidden somewhere in biblical verse?

Excuse me if I chuckle at the idea of a God telling us that something is a sin because it might possibly be a little more risky than average, if you’re not careful.  God – and his followers – should stick to acts of victimization and stop nitpicking what people do with their private lives.

The Tactful Christian Response to Homosexuality

I don’t think disagreement with homosexuality is necessarily bigotry, but it’s always amusing to hear Christians give a “reasonable” justification for labeling it a sin.  It breaks down like this (taken from a blog I read): “Homosexuality is associated with higher levels of disease, shorter life spans, more substance abuse, more domestic violence, lower levels of monogamy, and an obvious impossibility of biological reproduction.  These things are bad for health, safety, good social structure, and the continuation of humanity.  Therefore, we rightly label homosexuality as a sin.”

Even assuming it’s true that the gay community contributes to those social ills more than the general population, the Christians often seem to forget the difference between causation and correlation.  Just because low stress is associated with a lower risk of cancer doesn’t mean that cutting your stress will cure cancer.  Likewise, even if we find that gay people are more prone to domestic violence, it doesn’t mean that being gay causes you to smack your partner around.  If you do that, it’s because you’re a violent bully and a general piece of shit.  Not because you’re gay.

Higher Levels of Disease: I will assume we mean STDs here.  This is absurd.  The cause of contracting an STD is unsafe sex with an infected person.  The gender of the infected person is irrelevant.  If this is a statement about anal sex being high-risk, then clarify it.  Because then it wouldn’t apply to gay women, but it would to straight women who engage in anal sex.

Shorter Life Spans:  Where is the line of causation?  Why does being gay shorten your life?  And even if it does, so what?  Soldiers and Alaskan crab fisherman are much more likely to die young than the general population.  Should it be a sin to pursue a dangerous career?

More Substance Abuse:  Rock stars are more likely to be substance abusers than average.  Should joining a Seattle grunge band be a sin?

Lower Levels of Monogamy: Causation, please.  How does who you’re attracted to affect your inclination to be monogamous?  And I find it ironic that Christians who decry a lack of monogamy among homosexuals also want to stop them from getting married!

Impossibility of Biological Reproduction:  This has to be a joke.  Now it’s a sin not to pass on your genes?  What about couples who decide not to have children?  What about nuns?  Is it a sin if I decide to marry a woman who can’t have kids, thus ensuring that I’ll never produce a biological child?

Again, I’m not calling Christians bigots.  But the argument “Homosexuality leads to immorality” is weak and arbitrary.  The line of causation is unclear or even ridiculous, if only because there are so many factors contributing to the social ills we’re talking about.  If simple correlation with immorality is sufficient to earn the “sin” designation, then Christians are going to have to vastly expand what behavior constitutes sin.

Bill O’Reilly and the Slippery Slope

I like watching The O’Reilly Factor.  I think people who shriek endlessly about how cruel and dishonest O’Reilly is are wrong.  I don’t think this guy is disingenuous.  I think he’s egotistical and he always believes his opinions are best, I think he has a traditional axe to grind, but I don’t think he’s dishonest in the least.

I do, however, love to argue with some of his bullshit.

For instance, a little while back O’Reilly had two guests on his show talking about monkeys being cloned in Oregon for the purpose of stem cell research.  One of the guests was a doctor explaining the reasoning behind the research, and the other was decrying the cloning because it could lead to humans being cloned (which in her view was immoral).

First, I feel it’s a good idea to remind all the opponents of human cloning that identical twins are clones of one another.  The only difference between a human cloned in a lab by scientists and an identical twin is that the twin was cloned at a much earlier point (the embryo stage).  Further, I see at least one perfectly viable – and quite moral, if I may say so – reason to clone a human being:  It would give sterile couples the option to have a child biologically linked to at least one of them.

But the main point here is O’Reilly’s response.  He stated quite clearly to his guests that he never takes the slippery slope position, because it can be applied to anything.  He stated that the United States will simply make laws against human cloning, and that will be that.  he vehemently rejected the slippery slope argument that any cloning will inevitably lead to human cloning.

Now examine O’Reilly’s position on gay marriage.  He is in favor of civil unions for homosexuals, but he has repeatedly stated one of his main objections to gay marriage.  This is the idea that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, it will open the door for polygamists, people who want to marry animals, and so on.  That’s right, it’s the old slippery slope argument!  Indeed, one could go so far as to say this is O’Reilly’s principal argument against gay marriage.

Rarely is hypocrisy so revealed.  As O’Reilly pointed out on the cloning issue, we live in a country with laws.  There is no barrier to legalizing gay marriage and retaining a law that prohibits people from – for example – marrying animals (which raises ethical and health issues anyway).  As a moral, secular society, we decide where to draw the lines.  We do it all the time.  Maybe we’re not always correct, but there’s nothing wrong with endeavoring to draw such lines.