The Mask drops: Gay advocate and Christian debate

The reality of homosexuality is neither as gay advocates often present it nor as Christians crusading against homosexuality present it.

It is actually a bit annoying that these two extreme poles get to frame the debate on a very complex issue. We have the same situation when we debate capitalism vs socialism (whatever that is) and healthcare, and in debates on the environment.

Don't see any real holes in the comeback argument, nor is his argument outside the norm for most folks in this country. 

Obviously, the practice of homosexuality - since homosexuals comprise less than 2% of the population - is outside of what is normal.

norm: n. A standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical

normal :  according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
 : occurring naturally

I don't see homosexuality being taught as "normal" but I could see the need to explain what it is, & why it is different that heterosexual.

What most adults are blind to or just refuse to see is that, 1: most teens know what being gay is. 2:most kids know if they are or are not gay before they finish high school (even if they somehow never knew another gay person) 3: most kids now days don't really care if someone is gay or straight unless they were taught to "hate" and hate is a learned behavior.   4:"All men (people) are created equal" it doesn't say all straight white men are created equal. 

The same type of debate & fight has gone on in this country for near 200 years, but it was over the color of ones skin.  The same scare tactics were & still are used, and as a people we become more immune or resilient to the exaggerations and lies.

How sad it is that the Three R's are at the bottom of education standards and personal agenda comes to the forefront...reading and 'riting and 'rithmatic is still the most basics of a sound education...everything else may still be "taught" in schools but only as an elective subject I believe...

There is a broader view of what children should be learning in school about tolerance and compassion.  If acceptance is taught for those who are different in lifestyle; race; religion; gender; economic background; or even age, then we will have progressed as human beings. In a society where there are no "others" to fear, we wouldn't have to teach children to accept people who are gay, or Muslim, or Jewish, or elderly, or poor, or Mexican, or African-American.

Look, school's shouldn't be advocating anything at all except critical thinking.  Gore Vidal had this idea that everything taught in schools would be tied to history. So, if you learned about the 0 then you learned who created it, etc.  If that leads to tolerance and compassion, then great.

bluesbet.blogspot.com

Whats O?

Critical thinking by definition implies an attempt at objective judging so as to determine both merits and faults reaching informed decisions that are fact based rather than supposition.  The study of civil rights, for example, would by inquirey reach decisions grounded in tolerance and compassion, as would study of the Holocaust, The Trail of Tears, The Reformation, The Civil War, The Crusades.

Spydermonkey:

I think you can safely argue that if it is indeed a choice  -  I suspect for some it is, and for a larger number it is part of the whole make-up of the person  -  it should  be respected.  It need not be the norm to be very respected. 

For example,  I myself am not gay,  and do not feel it should be overly-promoted in schools,  yet I like gays very much, and feel the world would be far poorer without them in the mix,  and respect their relationships, and in terms of the males,  find them superior in nearly every way (from the many I knew in  Provincetown).  Paglia argues that in a free democracy,  an enchanting wealth of types should be celebrated,  so who cares about the "born that way"  argument?   I do not believe in gay marriage,  for Nietzshean reasons,  but I am not a big fan of marriage in any case  but view it as something nature forced on us.    I believe strongly in civil unions, and in equal rights and protection in all ways.  I do not view gays as deformed people to be treated with tolerance,  but as whole people who are part of the mix.  That is why democracy came into being:  to celebrate the harmonious mixture.  Drop the born that way, drop the marriage:  It is giving your enemy a strong,  strong, advantage over you.  That is where I would stand as a gay person.   Gays don't owe and should not in a democracy owe any explanation nor justification for their existence. 

Bravo.  I second it.  There are many straight people in civil unions as well.  And if politics stood separate from religion as it ought to,  the public discourse would not have this howling conflict.  In my opinion,  the fact that there ever had to be such a huge fight means democracy was not working as it ought.  And as I said,  if I were gay,  I would offer no apology and no explanation for my existence. This is why we left the medeival world and why we are not Muslims nor Puritans. 

I always wonder why people get all hot under the collar about anyones sexual orientation. I don't think we need to "teach" it in schools other than as part of a broader discussion about human sexuality (though gay relationships exist in the natural kingdome too). Conservative Christians can beleieve what they want as can gay advocates, IMHO neither of them has any right to look in or comment about my behavior in my bedroom, and nor should the governement. Let gays marry if they want, if the church/a church doesn't want to perform the ceremnoy fine and dandy, someo other one will. It is just such a non-issue as far as I am concerned and not one that requires judgement or censure. 

Radical Christians are giving all Christians a bad name!  There is a great variety of views in Christianity.  Many churches accept gays.  Some accept them, but refuse to marry them (Catholic).  In any case it's generally more tolerant than Islam, where absolutely NO mosque AT ALL accepts gays. . . so the Radical Christians are on the level of moderate Islam.

Yes,  thank you, I recommend you both.  smkovalinsky

rng

That is my point completely.  You don't have to teach acceptance of particular issues, if the broader view of accepting diversity as a valued precept and indeed the driver for civilization; it will be realized in the natural study of social studies and anthropology.  

With your usual panache and astuteness,  A,  you hit the nail on the head.  A child who grows up seeing a society of complex types who are respectful to one another will not need to learn "tolerance"  or "diversity".  It will flow naturally from what came before.  Why is this so hard for so many to understand, that is the question of questions.  :( (wish I could post under my normal account and not have to go incognito like this,  grrrrrr)

Thank You smk

I share your consternation as to why this is not plain to many.  : (

"You don't have to teach acceptance of particular issues, if the broader view of accepting diversity as a valued precept and indeed the driver for civilization..."

Sounds good, but doesn't quite jibe with reality.  Diversity is a wedge that drives people apart. It is commonality and uniformity that bonds us together.  What happened with the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, has happened to hundreds of different nations/empires/kingdoms all thru history. Diversity fuels hatred and resentment. One only need look at the Middle East, or Sri Lanka, for confirmation. Indeed, it was the lack of common values that sundered this country over the slavery issue.

When a people no longer share values, what, short of force, will keep them together?  

Toleration becomes intolerance when it declares that only toleration will be allowed. Folks with sincerely held beliefs will find that their beliefs are no longer tolerated.  Diversity ensues, strife follows.