Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Blood on their hands, or The Law of Unintended Consequences

Dear City Council member:

This letter is simply to ensure that you have asked yourself the question: "To what extent does the Norman City Council's needless provocation of such controversy as the Homosexual History Month proclamation mean that on our hands rests some of Zach Harrington's blood?" 

Was it worth it to you?  Will you and other Council members learn to analyze with greater care the law of unintended consequences?  While I have no wish to self-righteously condemn anyone, yet recognition of a mistake and repentance of that mistake is essential.  You bear some, if not much, responsibility.  My hope is that you will recognize your role in this tragedy, repent of it, and adjust your behavior and future decision-making accordingly.  Standing tall in irrational pride is not a virtue. 


Best Regards,
Rhology

71 comments:

NAL said...

When it comes to creating a "toxic" environment, I usually blame those adding the toxin. But that's just me.

David said...

You think that this is in any way the city council's fault? Are you freakin' delusional?

Rhology said...

NAL,

Don't those who put the toxin in the oven share some of the blame?


David,
Actually, no, I don't. I think the blame lies solely with the killer. But what I'm doing here is judging these liberals by the rules of their own game. It's never the poor pervert's fault; it's always some outside pressure. If that's true, then the CC shares some of that blame for needlessly airing its city's dirty laundry. What did they think was going to happen? Were bluebirds and sunshine going to start flying out of people's butts?

David said...

You're right. If the doctor had not told the patient that he had a malignant tumor, the patient would have lived. It's the doctor's fault that the patient died.

The city council should not have taken any action that might reveal the fact that Norman is a piss-ant town loaded with homophobic, hate-filled Christians.

Generally, speaking, I think that you are a reasonably bright guy. But in this case, you're an idiot.

Rhology said...

What's your argument that this is a malignant tumor? And why is the City Council the doctor? Seems to me it'd be the City Council in your example, and I don't go to the CC to ask about tumors.

David said...

The "malignant tumor" is the hatred and homophobia that contributed to this kid's suicide. The kid appears to have been overwhelmed by the rejection and hatred he felt from those around hime. The presence of the tumor is precisely why the CC felt a need to do sometime positive like have a GLBT month.

By the way, your original post gave no indication that you thought that the "blame lies solely with the killer". It clearly placed the blame almost entirely on the CC. You know, Rho, a kid is dead. Maybe this is not the best time to try to score points against some exagerated, cartoon version of liberalism.

Paul C said...

Don't those who put the toxin in the oven share some of the blame?

Yes, and you were one of those people. The fact that you apparently haven't realised this is testament to something peculiarly unpleasant.

Rhology said...

Please quote me engaging in homophobia and/or hatred.

If you can't, to what malignancy do you refer?

David said...

Please quote me engaging in homophobia and/or hatred.

If you can't, to what malignancy do you refer?

First, I did not say that you, personally, were "engaging in homophobia and/or hatred", although your response to the possibility of an GLBT month does suggest that you have some aversion to homosexuality. But in any event, the malignacy that I was referring to was the hatred and homophobia expressed by the many who objected to the CC's actions. As you yourself said, "were bluebirds and sunshine going to start flying out of people's butts." That statement tells me that you understand the malignacy to which I refer.

Andrew said...

Why is it hatred and homophobia to not want your city council to celebrate how a particular group of people have sex? Or to recognize the history of people who have their genitalia surgically altered? David, if you and I lived in the same city, and I had a fetish for human waste, would you like the city council spending it's time debating whether or not to recognize poop fetish history month just so I wouldn't feel bad? Would it be a valid argument for me to just turn around and accuse you of fecaphobia? Or would I need some other argument to justify poop fetish history month in our city?

Rho, I hope the content of my comment wasn't out of bounds. If so I will take no offense in the event that it is deleted.

Rhology said...

Haha, it's hard to go out of bounds on this blog. I like your comment quite a lot. No doubt our homophilic friends will either refuse to take your point seriously or will arbitrarily make up reasons why we shouldn't celebrate poopaphilia.

David said...

With respect to homosexuality, I'm afraid that the comments and attitudes in question go far beyond "not wanting your city council to celebrate" something. This is not quite the same as objecting to something like National Celery Month". The last time I checked, no one has ever been killed for taking delight in a Cleveland steamer. I'm sorry that you are unable to understand that.

Rhology said...

When was the last time someone was killed for taking delight in a homosexual act in the US?

That's far from the most specific and helpful way of speaking of suicide, you know. Suicide is when someone kills himself.

David said...

By the way, Rho, what exactly is your position here? Does the CC bear any responsibility or not?

And what exactly did you mean when you said "what did they think was going to happen, were bluebirds and sunshine going to start flying out of people's butts?"

David said...

"When was the last time someone was killed for taking delight in a homosexual act in the US? That's far from the most specific and helpful way of speaking of suicide, you know. Suicide is when someone kills himself."

Huh?

Rhology said...

Yes, they bear responsibility for stirring up the nest unnecessarily. By extension, it was ridiculous and unwise of them to bring up the issue.
What I meant was that they're idiots if they thought that nobody would disagree and that nobody would raise objections, even emotional objections. And that carries the danger of pushing insecure, juvenile, immature homosexuals who are "struggling" over the edge.

David said...

"Yes, they bear responsibility for stirring up the nest unnecessarily. By extension, it was ridiculous and unwise of them to bring up the issue."

So, you're contradicting yourself. (Rho: "I think the blame lies solely with the killer."). Ok, got it. Are you going to change your mind again, or will you stick with blaming the CC?

So we're back to blaming the doctor for identifying the malignant tumor. Better to just ignore the tumor and hope that it will go away. This is your position, yes?


"What I meant was that they're idiots if they thought that nobody would disagree and that nobody would raise objections, even emotional objections. And that carries the danger of pushing insecure, juvenile, immature homosexuals who are "struggling" over the edge."

If the objections were not hateful and homophobic (or "emotional", to use your euphemism), then there should have been no danger. If the nest was not a nest of hatred, then there should have been no risks. So, you understand that there was hatred and homophobia in the objections. You understand that there is a need to support "immature homosexuals", and that's really what the goal of the CC was. Good. We've made some progress here.

Rhology said...

Yeah, I suppose on further reflection "blame" and "responsibility" are not really very far apart in meaning in this case.

I should've said "MOST of the blame lies with the killer", to leave some room for blame to be distributed among the following, in descending order of culpability:
1) the people who enable the gay rights agenda and train people to be stupid enough to equate these 2 things:
i. disagreement with forcing public acceptance of out-and-out homosexual and transgender behavior
ii. hatred of homosexual people
2) the CC
3) the people who disagreed with the proclamation not being careful enough to make clear what they were disagreeing with.


Better to just ignore the tumor and hope that it will go away

I of course disagree that it's a tumor at all.
But in this case, your analogy isn't very good. You'd need to add that it's a tumor that otherwise does nothing and is invisible unless you stick sharp things into it.


If the objections were not hateful and homophobic (or "emotional", to use your euphemism), then there should have been no danger.

See group #3 above, yes.
But the CC is a bunch of fools for not seeing that coming. People react when they are forced into things they find offensive. That's just the way it is. You have to have a good reason to force them, and the gay rights agenda is not even close.


You understand that there is a need to support "immature homosexuals"

1) Where did I say that?
2) In point of fact, yes, and I've given time and money in the past to organisations that help homosexual people heal. I least of all want homosexuals to commit suicide and thus almost certainly go straight to Hell. I want to help them, show them the truth, show them forgiveness for their sins in the Savior. It should be obvious that proclaiming pride in what homosexuals have accomplished in history despite their accomplishments having nothing to do with homosexuality is not compatible with that objective.

David said...

“I should've said "MOST of the blame lies with the killer", to leave some room for blame to be distributed among the following…”

Good, at least we have your position straight, although why you place those expressing hatred at the bottom of the list of decreasing culpability is beyond my understanding. I think that what you meant to say was that people should be more careful about expressing their true feelings.

In fact, all the CC did was uncover the truth about Norman. I thought that the truth would set you free, but your preference is to bury the truth. Keep it under the rock.


“You'd need to add that it's a tumor that otherwise does nothing and is invisible unless you stick sharp things into it.”

You’re right. Unless CCs do thing like try to support gays, homophobia causes no harm. No one is ever threatened, denigrated, attacked or killed. Gays have no idea how much they are hated unless CCs turn over the rock. The tumor is totally benign. Never hurt anyone.


“But the CC is a bunch of fools for not seeing that coming. People react when they are forced into things they find offensive.”

“Offensive”. Interesting choice of words. So, you have a certain aversion or antipathy towards homosexuals?

“You have to have a good reason to force them, and the gay rights agenda is not even close.”

Your ignorance is extraordinary. Turns out, you really do need to live in a town with a GLBT History Month. You have much to learn.


“ Where did I say that?”

Well, you acknowledged that “immature homosexuals” are at risk of suicide, so I assumed that you understood the need to provide support to prevent this.

“In point of fact, yes, and I've given time and money in the past to organisations that help homosexual people heal.”

Has anyone ever tried to “heal” you of your heterosexuality? How did that work out?

Rhology said...

I include them b/c their blame is least. They're the least subtle, secretive, and clueless. Sure, they're clueless but they're closer than the liberals.

The CC didn't NEED to uncover the truth! They knew it! They said so. They chose to throw rocks at the nest anyway and invite insecure homosexuals to run thru the swarm, for no other reason than that they felt like it.

You're not understanding my point here. This is an INTERNAL CRITIQUE. I don't want to bury the truth; I want the gov't to come out NOT in favor of homosexuality. Ie, keep it to yourself. Come out of the closet, and that's your problem. If you're assaulted, OK, we pursue and punish the offenders, but don't expect any special treatment. Further, you're taking "the truth will set you free" totally out of context.


Unless CCs do thing like try to support gays, homophobia causes no harm.

Prove that most of the reaction to the proclamation was homophobic. You can't.
In which case you'd need to prove that most of the population is prone to violence, and the facts are against you.
So, you have nothing.
The CC invited ppl to express themselves on the topic, and predictably most can't do so with a great deal of emotional detachment, and homosexuals are conditioned by the gay rights agenda, as mentioned, to see any disapproval as virtually a direct threat to them, consideration that they're subhuman or something. CC should've seen it coming, or at minimum should recognise their fault after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.


So, you have a certain aversion or antipathy towards homosexuals?

I used "they" for a reason. On the contrary, when I see an openly gay person, I generally gravitate TOWARDS talking to them.


“You have to have a good reason to force them, and the gay rights agenda is not even close.”

Your ignorance is extraordinary.


Empty, biased words from someone who just asked me a question that reveals he knows nothing about me.


you acknowledged that “immature homosexuals” are at risk of suicide, so I assumed that you understood the need to provide support to prevent this.

And that follows...how?
It doesn't follow - you assumed it b/c you are operating off of prejudice.


Has anyone ever tried to “heal” you of your heterosexuality? How did that work out?

Heterosexuality is not a perversion of which to be healed (and forgiven), but homosexuality is.
OTOH, my lust problem has been a source of struggle my entire life, and I have sought healing and help, and it has helped quite a bit, thank you.

David said...

Ok, Rho, you want to shoot the doctor. I get it.


"Homosexuals are conditioned by the gay rights agenda, as mentioned, to see any disapproval as virtually a direct threat to them, consideration that they're subhuman or something.

They not conditioned by the "gay rights agenda". They are conditioned by a lifetime of running for their lives.


"Heterosexuality is not a perversion of which to be healed (and forgiven), but homosexuality is."

Aannndddd...there it is.

Guess that's all, folks.

Paul C said...

They chose to throw rocks at the nest anyway and invite insecure homosexuals to run thru the swarm, for no other reason than that they felt like it.

Homosexuals run through that swarm every day, which is why the poor bastard killed himself. He couldn't face another day of running through the swarm, which had been there long before that Council meeting. Your lack of sympathy for him and his family is astonishing but unsurprising.

Rhology said...

Who said I have no sympathy for him? More bias.

And if you think that's WHY he did it, why did he do it just a little after the CC meeting, and why does his family relate it to the CC meeting? You appear to be bending the facts to fit your preconceived framework.

David said...

Sorry, forgot something.

"Don't expect any special treatment."

I think you meant to say "don't expect to have the same rights as heterosexuals". There, I fixed it for ya.

Rhology said...

Too bad it's false.

Paul C said...

Who said I have no sympathy for him?

I did, based on the lack of sympathy you have so far demonstrated on this blog.

Rhology said...

ESP!

Paul C said...

You'll probably never recognise that people like you espousing attitudes like yours were the reason that he killed himself, but it bears repeating just in case.

Paul C said...

There's no ESP involved. When somebody displays no sympathy, we say that they display a lack of sympathy.

Rhology said...

Now all you need is some evidence, especially since the timing and the family's testimony are strongly against you.

David said...

"Too bad it's false."

You mean that gays have the right to marry the people they love? Cool. I didn't know that.

Rhology said...

Paul C,

You're just a hater. You can't conceive of the notion why I would put quite a bit at risk in making enemies on the CC by attempting to help them see how they have been extremely UNhelpful to the homosexual community. Or you refuse to.


David,

I have the right to marry the people I love?

Paul C said...

Now all you need is some evidence, especially since the timing and the family's testimony are strongly against you.

You live your life in constant fear, watching people just like you getting bullied every day, skirting the edge of being bullied yourself, feeling like you're swimming through a pool of poison. One day you see that the City Council is doing something to try and dilute that poison, and you go along to that meeting to support it, or out of curiosity, or just not to feel so damned alone. When you get there, you find yourself surrounded by people who call the way you are a perversion, a sickness that needs to be cured; that discussing the torment you go through is a waste of time; that you don't belong there. You go home and you go to your room and you sit on your bed and you realise that this is the shape of the rest of your life, a never-ending struggle against people who are disgusted by who you are.

And then you take the one way out you can.

Paul C said...

You can't conceive of the notion why I would put quite a bit at risk in making enemies on the CC by attempting to help them see how they have been extremely UNhelpful to the homosexual community.

You risked nothing of any importance.

David said...

I have the right to marry the people I love?

Sigh. You know what I mean here. You have the right to marry a consenting adult that you are sexually attracted to and/or love, provided that the adult in question is not your sister.

OK? Haven't we been through this before? Do gays have the right to marry a consenting adult that they are sexually attracted to and/or love if that individual is of the same sex?

Other rights...

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has notified public universities, including the University of Virginia, that they must rescind policies banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. Now, does this mean that UVA can now discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? Can UVA hire or fire based on whether or not you're gay?

Andrew said...

David, you said:
"The last time I checked, no one has ever been killed for taking delight in a Cleveland steamer. I'm sorry that you are unable to understand that."

Let's take your argument a little further and see if you still want to go with it.
There have been people killed for engaging in acts of paedophilia, there fore we should declare October to be national paedophile month. Same logic. Still want to go with that?
My critique of your argument aside I wonder why the mere fact of someone having something wrong done to them necessitates some kind of special month. It seems ridiculous to me.

Paul C said...

There have been people killed for engaging in acts of paedophilia, there fore we should declare October to be national paedophile month.

Ah, I see. Being homosexual is like having a "poop fetish". Being homosexual is like being a paedophile. And you wonder why kids like Zach Harrington kill themselves.

David said...

Andrew,

The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia was discussed in comments under Rho'd post "It's Homosexual History Month!"

As far as steamers go, I assume that you understand that there is a significant difference between a fetish and sexual orientation. I would have thought that you could understand being persecuted onto death for what you are, but
apparently not.

Andrew said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrew said...

Paul C, that isn't what I said. David, I realize that the discussion has been had already. The differences are not really germane to the point I am making. I was applying your logic to something you probably see as being morally wrong in order to show the weakness of your previous counter-argument. Try engaging with my actual point next time.
David you said:
"As far as steamers go, I assume that you understand that there is a significant difference between a fetish and sexual orientation."

That's debatable, but beside the point.

David said...

"The differences are not really germane to the point I am making."

Yeah, they are. Read the comments again.

"That's debatable, but beside the point."

No, it's not really beside the point.

Paul C said...

Paul C, that isn't what I said.

I want you to imagine yourself standing up and making those arguments in the council meeting. Now I want you to imagine that Zach Harrington is sitting next to you, listening to you using paedophilia and "poop fetishes" as useful comparisons for how his sexuality should be viewed.

Now - and I know this is hard for you - I want you to imagine how that makes him feel. Can you do that for me? Can you imagine how he feels as he goes home and thinks about what you just said? Can you close your eyes and put yourself in his shoes?

Ah, but we shouldn't do anything based on whether it makes poor Zach feel bad about himself. Cold hard rational arguments are what we need! And your arguments are of the philosophical type - it's not offensive if it's a reductio!

Zach Harrington, dead, and you still can't even begin to understand how your words might have hurt him.

Andrew said...

David, are you conceding that you have no argument in response?

Andrew said...

Paul C, I can imagine how Mr. Harrington felt. I myself have considered suicide. Clearly I was not as far down the spiral as he; but I am not unfamiliar with just wishing I were dead. So maybe you aren't so smart.
But in response I would like to take the same course with you that I did with David. What if Christians started committing suicide after the CC in question approved this homosexual history month? What if it was because it made them feel bad about who they were? Would that line of argument work the other way? Why or why not?

You said:
"Zach Harrington, dead, and you still can't even begin to understand how your words might have hurt him."

I can imagine. I just can't imagine pretending that Mr. Harrington's lifestyle was acceptable in order to preserve his self-esteem. You also have to remember that I am a Christian. Without Christ, Mr. Harrington was dead already. So are you.

David said...

"David, are you conceding that you have no argument in response?"

Nope. I gave you my arguments. I'm still waiting for yours.

You said that the "the differences are not really germane to the point I am making" but you didn't explain why. So, you didn't actually make any counter-argument in the first place. So, I just repeated my original argument, and I'm waiting for an argument in return. If homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same, and you told Paul C that they not, what is your point of suggesting Pedophilia Month would an equivalent of GLBS Month? Is homosexuality and pedophilia the same or not? You need to make up your mind.

With respect to the differences between orientation and fetish, all you said was "that's debatable, but beside the point". That was all you said. You offered no argument to support this position, you offered no further explanation of what you were saying, so what was I supposed to say in return?

Andrew said...

David, your argument seemed to be: Homosexuals have been killed for their homosexuality, therefore my reduction to absurdity concerning poop-fetish history month was invalid. So I replaced PFHM with paedophilia because some paedophiles have been killed for paedophilia. I did this in order to apply the thinking in your counter argument to your counter argument. It's simple. Either your reasoning is valid or it isn't. If it is then please explain how.
I wasn't waiting for a response to my comment on the difference between fetish and orientation. It was an aside.

David said...

"You also have to remember that I am a Christian. Without Christ, Mr. Harrington was dead already. So are you."

Ah, yes, so now we move on to the "I have the one truly true truth, and you don't" part of the program.

Well, we seem to have strayed a bit from Rho's original post, so just out of curiosity, Andrew, do you think that the CC is to share in the blame for the kid's death?

David said...

“So I replaced PFHM with pedophilia because some paedophiles have been killed for paedophilia. I did this in order to apply the thinking in your counter argument to your counter argument. It's simple. Either your reasoning is valid or it isn't. If it is then please explain how.”

But if homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia, then a GLBT Month and a Pedophilia Month would not be equivalent. Now, when Paul C said that you were saying that they were the same, you said that this is not what you were saying. In addition, the differences were expanded upon in a previous discussion, and that’s why I suggested that you re-read those comments. So, we can conclude that homosexuality and pedophilia are not equivalent, and therefore, your original argument about replacing one type of month with another is not valid. The fact that some have been killed for pedophilia is irrelevant, because the two hypothetical months are not equivalent. No further reasoning or argument on my part is needed.

“I wasn't waiting for a response to my comment on the difference between fetish and orientation. It was an aside.”

Good. So, I see that we now can agree that your original steamer argument was not a very good one.

Rhology said...

Like I said, you are a hater, Paul C. You don't know anything about me, but you're just SURE I didn't risk anythg of importance. You're just SURE that I don't care about homosexuals.
But that's OK. We've established over and over that your moral system is based on nothing more than yourself. One homo sapien's opinion against another's. That hardly supports the weight of emotion you're pouring into these comments to debase me. The image of God is spilling out of you, but you won't admit it.

Further, you think that my worldview is a cause for homosexuals to commit suicide. I grant it, actually, for reasons I've explained. What you haven't done is show that my post's accusation is not ALSO part of the problem.


David,

I have the right to marry the people I love?

1) On atheism, human rights don't exist; they're a fantasy that some people agree to.
2) If you mean in the USA, no, you don't have that right. You can marry ONE PERSON. Don't have to love them. Can't be a close relative. Can't be underage. Lots of can't-bes. One of the can't-bes is of the same gender. But that same thing is true of everyone, so my statement is true.

David said...

"On atheism, human rights don't exist; they're a fantasy that some people agree to."

So if something is created by humans, it's a fantasy?


"If you mean in the USA, no, you don't have that right. "

Not quite right. In several states, I can marry one adult of the either sex. One of the can't-bes is not "of the same gender". I can, in fact, marry one adult person that I love regardless of sex. If I'm straight, I can marry one adult that I love. If I'm gay, I can marry one adult that I love. Gay, straight, we all of the same rights.

But if I go to a different state, and if I'm gay, then I don't have the same rights that I have in certain other states. I lose rights that have in certain states. Your right to marry someone of the opposite sex is not lost in these other states. In these other state, if I'm gay, then I lose rights that I have in other states. But if I'm straight, I lose nothing.

In the meantime, what about the UVA case?

Have you ever had to fight off a physical attack because you're straight?

David said...

"What you haven't done is show that my post's accusation is not ALSO part of the problem. "

Still shooting the doctor? Try attacking the tumor instead. Gives the patient a better chance of survival.

David said...

"Further, you think that my worldview is a cause for homosexuals to commit suicide. I grant it, actually, for reasons I've explained."

Wow, it's kind of disturbing to know that people actually think like this.

Rhology said...

So if something is created by humans, it's a fantasy?

SOME humans. Prove to me that human rights are anything other than what I've said. You know, evidence.


In several states, I can marry one adult of the either sex. One of the can't-bes is not "of the same gender".

1) Knock yourself out. But not in most of the USA.
2) Doesn't it bother you that one of your "human rights" is not recognised in most of the world?
3) How does this address my response to your question? You asked whether homosexuals have the same rights. I said they do. Then you asked whether they have the right to do what nobody has the right to do. You're barking up the wrong tree.


If I'm straight, I can marry one adult that I love.

1) Or don't love. Love is irrelevant to marriage in the eyes of the state.
2) And nobody's forcing you to get married.
3) And no, you can't. I've already told you some of the limitations, and you haven't interacted with that yet, but have rather acted like I didn't say anythg.


I lose rights that have in certain states

What kind of right is it that can be lost by the whim of man?


what about the UVA case?

What do I care about it? You may have noticed I'm not in VA.
If you're asking whether I think it's OK for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of whether they feel it necessary to publicise their sex lives to the entire world, then yes, I think they should be free to do that. Homosexuality is not a civil right, and I can only guess how my employer would react if I made sure everyone knows the details of my sexual preference. At work.
Here's an idea - how about you just keep it to yourself, whether gay or straight?


Have you ever had to fight off a physical attack because you're straight?

1) Hahaha, no. But I have b/c of buckteeth. Tell me why that's different.
2) And neither have the vast majority of homosexuals.


it's kind of disturbing to know that people actually think like this

Fortunately, we've seen in the past that your morality has no bearing on anyone else.

David said...

“SOME humans. Prove to me that human rights are anything other than what I've said. You know, evidence.”

I’m sorry, but you didn’t answer the question. If something is created by humans, are these creations fantasies?


“ Knock yourself out. But not in most of the USA.”

So, what? Irrelevant. Doesn’t address the point of loss of rights.

“Doesn't it bother you that one of your "human rights" is not recognised in most of the world? “

Huh?

“You asked whether homosexuals have the same rights. I said they do. “

No, they don’t. In some states, they are not able to marry the one consenting non-relative adult that they wish to marry. You do not experience the same denial of rights.

Your claim is that gays have the same rights as straights. My point is that gays lose certain rights when they cross state borders. The legal rights recognized by one state are not recognized by the other state. If you’re gay, you lose your rights when you cross a state line. By contrast, straights retain these same rights. So, gays do not have the same rights as straights.

Most of the rest of your response simply misses the point or is irrelevant.

David said...

Again, irrelevant! We’re talking about differences in terms of rights.

“If you're asking whether I think it's OK for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of whether they feel it necessary to publicise their sex lives to the entire world, then yes, I think they should be free to do that.”

Really? You really think that it’s ok for fire someone because they’re gay? Now do you understand the need for a GLBT Month? Now do you understand why gay teenagers might think that suicide is the best choice? I’m afraid that your homophobia is showing.

You think that’s it’s ok if you’re fired because you’re straight? Really? Have you ever been fired because of your orientation?

“Homosexuality is not a civil right,

This phrase makes no sense. It’s like saying “race is not a civil right”. Of course “race is not a civil right”. But you can’t discriminate based on race. Likewise, I see no reason to protect the right to discriminate based on orientation. If one is going to allow discrimination, then is seems to me that the burden should be on the discriminator to explain why this is necessary.

“And I can only guess how my employer would react if I made sure everyone knows the details of my sexual preference. At work.”

Does your immediate supervisor at work know that you are straight? Any doubts in your employer’s mind about your orientation. Do you keep your orientation a secret? How, exactly, do you propose that all employees keep their sexual orientation a complete and total secret from the employer? “

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

“Here's an idea - how about you just keep it to yourself, whether gay or straight?”

You’re conflating two things. You’re confusing the basic trait of orientation with how someone actually behaves in the workplace.

I’m afraid that your response screams “homophobia”. You really hate the idea that gays exist, and you don’t ever want to have to see this or deal with this in any way. Well, it’s either homophobia or suppressed homosexuality a al Ted Haggard. I can’t tell which.


“ Hahaha, no. But I have b/c of buckteeth. Tell me why that's different.”

And how did you feel about the fact that you had to fight off physical attack because of buckteeth? Is it ok that people attacked you because you had buckteeth?


“ And neither have the vast majority of homosexuals. “

Again, irrelevant.



“Fortunately, we've seen in the past that your morality has no bearing on anyone else.”

Always changing the subject. Doesn’t change the disturbing nature of your way of thinking.

Ok, I think we’ve seen who and what you are. Thanks for playing.

Paul C said...

You don't know anything about me, but you're just SURE I didn't risk anythg of importance. You're just SURE that I don't care about homosexuals.

Hey, I can only go on the available evidence. I fail to see how writing to your city council risks anything; I fail to see you exhibit any sympathy for Zach Harrington or his family; I fail to see you exhibit any sympathy for homosexuals in general. It's part of a general pattern in your writing.

<Further, you think that my worldview is a cause for homosexuals to commit suicide.

No I don't. I think you personally are a cause for homosexuals to commit suicide.

What you haven't done is show that my post's accusation is not ALSO part of the problem.

I'm not trying to. My main point is that you are part of the problem – the largest part, in fact, a person with exactly the sort of attitudes that drove Zach Harrington to kill himself. As I said, I realise that you'll probably never recognise that, but I can't just stay silent.

Paul C said...

What if Christians started committing suicide after the CC in question approved this homosexual history month? What if it was because it made them feel bad about who they were? Would that line of argument work the other way? Why or why not?

That's not the line of argument. What you mean is, what if young Christians started committing suicide because of being abused daily, of being told that they don't belong in society, of everything around them screaming that they are perverts, a sickness that needs to be cured? If that was the case, the same argument would hold and I'd support the city council bringing it up as a situation that needs to be addressed.

I just can't imagine pretending that Mr. Harrington's lifestyle was acceptable in order to preserve his self-esteem.

It's not his lifestyle, it's his sexual orientation; and your lack of imagination is not a good reason to drive somebody to suicide.

You also have to remember that I am a Christian.

You'll have to keep reminding me, I'm afraid, because you certainly don't talk like one.

So I replaced PFHM with paedophilia because some paedophiles have been killed for paedophilia. I did this in order to apply the thinking in your counter argument to your counter argument. It's simple. Either your reasoning is valid or it isn't.

Since they don't want to raise awareness about LGBT just because some people got killed, your counter argument makes no sense at all. It also makes no sense at all period, but that's a whole other story.

Paul C said...

What if Christians started committing suicide after the CC in question approved this homosexual history month? What if it was because it made them feel bad about who they were? Would that line of argument work the other way? Why or why not?

That's not the line of argument. What you mean is, what if young Christians started committing suicide because of being abused daily, of being told that they don't belong in society, of everything around them screaming that they are perverts, a sickness that needs to be cured? If that was the case, the same argument would hold and I'd support the city council bringing it up as a situation that needs to be addressed.

I just can't imagine pretending that Mr. Harrington's lifestyle was acceptable in order to preserve his self-esteem.

It's not his lifestyle, it's his sexual orientation; and your lack of imagination is not a good reason to drive somebody to suicide.

You also have to remember that I am a Christian.

You'll have to keep reminding me, I'm afraid, because you certainly don't talk like one.

So I replaced PFHM with paedophilia because some paedophiles have been killed for paedophilia. I did this in order to apply the thinking in your counter argument to your counter argument. It's simple. Either your reasoning is valid or it isn't.

Since they don't want to raise awareness about LGBT just because some people got killed, your counter argument makes no sense at all. It also makes no sense at all period, but that's a whole other story.

marhaban said...

"Here's an idea - how about you just keep it to yourself, whether gay or straight?"

Homosexual people I know aren't looking for the right to announce to the world their sex lives. They are looking for healthcare for their sig. other. They are looking for sharing retirement benefits and social security. They are looking for the legal right to adopt the same children that they are raising together. They are looking for the right to file their taxes jointly. And they would really just like to be known as a regular person and not told that they are evil on a regular basis.

Andrew said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrew said...

David and Paul,
I cannot tell whether I am being unclear or the two of you are being obtuse. In the interest of full disclosure I have to say I lean toward the latter. In any case I don't really want to go in circles with the two of you so I am going to remove myself from the remainder of this thread. Maybe we can argue about something else later on. I was thinking of blogging something on my own excuse for a blog dealing with David's comment:
"Ah, yes, so now we move on to the "I have the one truly true truth, and you don't" part of the program."
If I post anything on it I will let you guys know.

Paul C said...

I cannot tell whether I am being unclear or the two of you are being obtuse.

It's neither of those. It's that you don't realise that what you perceive to be a killer argument is nothing of the sort, and that you're in denial about the fact that yours is exactly the sort of rhetoric that drove Zach Harrington to kill himself.

Lucian said...

Blood on their hands


Yeah... about that...

Lucian said...

Hi, Rho!

Thought this might interest you...

Rhology said...

Lucian,

"This post has been deleted by a blog administrator" contains more substance than most comments you post. You apparently think you're very clever, but let me assure you that you are in reality a buffoon. You're the reason I don't bother reading the Orthodox Apologetics blog; the others I have some measure of respect for.

Lucian said...

Rho,


I'm not black, I don't live in America, and I certainly don't like rap: so gaining and earning (quote/unquote) "respect" isn't exactly one of my top priorities.. I've got no such mental obsessions [heck, not even American blacks have them: it's just a pathetic cliche used & abused by the media].


..Nor does it play any importance how smart or stupid I am: when I say something, and offer proof for it, and the only way the opponent knows how to deal with my mere factual observations is by simply deleting my comments, using the head-in-the-sand ostrich-method, I think this, by itself, speaks volumes..

Rhology said...

Please be so kind as to name one single fact that you communicated in the deleted comments.

Lucian said...

V. claimed, among others, that Indians are iconoclasts: it wasn't a completely false statement, but it was a half-truth (which seems to be a perpetual problem for Protestantism: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing).

I corrected his mistake, telling him that indeed they don't have icons, but that they are not iconoclast either. I also provided him with a link to an interview with an Indian Oriental Orthodox Christian, so that he wouldn't just simply take my word for it. (Later, of course, my comment was deleted) -- So, there's your fact.

Lvka said...

...and here's more about the blood on our hands...