4 ms·
This is not a hateful position. It is a political position and a stance of how society should operate. I see no gay hatred there. Simply the strong need for fam
by 127 13y ago
This is not a hateful position. It is a political position and a stance of how society should operate. I see no gay hatred there. Simply the strong need for family and society building. Just because you can't understand his reasons and emotionally react to some of his opinions does not a bigot make.
- daliusd 13y agoYes, it is stupid, ignorant and unscientific, but not hateful. It might be used by people with hateful intentions however. "Argument from authority" is logical fallacy but a lot of people are still tricked by it.
- speeder 13y agoWe will see how unscientific it is in 50 years more or less...
- daliusd 13y agoLet's define what's scientific, which parts of that writing can be considered scientific by that definition and return in 50 years here. Really. I can add that to my TODO list :) Chances that I will be still alive are not very high but I still have those chances. I want to define what's scientific because after 50 years in pessimistic scenario religion can be considered scientific and pope might be The Chief Scientist.
- JonnieCache 13y agoIf he's so concerned about the fabric of society and the family why doesn't he write about the evils of divorce? The divorce rate is like 50%, whereas gayness hovers around 5% depending on who you ask. Somehow the lack of throbbing, purple-veined meatsicks must render it less compelling. EDIT: withdrawing the above childishness, turns out he does write extensively about divorce.
- yummyfajitas 13y agoHe has written about the evils of divorce. http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-11-13-1.html http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-11-13-1.html A quick search suggests he regularly incorporates criticism of divorce into his other writings. http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-01-07-1.html http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-01-07-1.html http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-03-28-1.html http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-03-28-1.html
- JonnieCache 13y agoGood for him. Sounds like he probably means what he says then.
- grammaton 13y agoSure, but it's really, really hard to believe it's all so sterile and impersonal. "Hey, i'm sure you're a really nice person, I just think you should be legally discriminated against and denied certain rights solely on the basis of your sexual orientation because I have some ill-informed and antiquated ideas about The Sanctity Of Marriage (tm). Beer?" Doesn't really seem realistic to me. Oh, let's hear what he has to say: "Furthermore, if we allow ourselves to be intimidated by our fear of the world's censure into silence in the face of attempts by homosexuals to make their sin acceptable under the laws of the polity, then we have abandoned our role as teachers of righteousness." "The repentant homosexual must be met with forgiveness. Even hypocritical homosexuals must be treated individually with compassion. But the collective behavior of the hypocrites of homosexuality must be met with our most forceful arguments and our complete intolerance of their lies." "That a few individuals suffer from tragic genetic mixups does not affect the differences between genetically distinct males and females." Yheaaa, sorry, but he actually is a bigot.
- ghshephard 13y agoReplace, "Gay people should not be allowed to marry" with "Black people should not be allowed to marry white people" or "Jews should not be allowed to work as professionals", or "Women should stay at home and take care of the children" When you start identifying a group, and placing restrictions on rights which you enjoy, you are taking a hateful position.