Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Fellatious Theology
An anti-gay Baptist pastor in Oklahoma has been arrested for "offering to engage in an act of lewdness" after propositioning a plainclothes cop for oral sex. (He was, he says, "in the area pastoring to police," which may suggest a novel interpretation of that whole "eat of my body" line.) Sure, there's a certain amount of poetic-justice schadenfreude here, but my first thought was: "What kind of sick dystopia makes it a crime to offer someone a hummer?"
Jeff P.|1.5.06 @ 5:52PM|#
Too bad it wasn't a priest. I always thought that there was something fishy about asking if you wanted communion in the hand or in the mouth.
|1.5.06 @ 6:03PM|#
Life initates the Onion once again.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42606
I think that is why the Onion is not as funny as it used to be, its
too close to the truth.
|1.5.06 @ 6:03PM|#
It's not clear from the article exactly who was to be serviced as part of the proposition. Either way, the law is pretty ridiculous, just a little more so if the hypocrite was busted for offering his own services without demanding payment (even if he was offering payment for the priviledge).
Sandy|1.5.06 @ 6:09PM|#
Given Rev. Pat's latest pronouncement that God is repsonsible
for the misfortunes of those with whom Pat has a policy
disagreement, AKA dancing on Sharon's grave, I just wish it had
been him.
Re: the law; Yes, I agree the law is a travesty. But it's hard to
not bask in the shadenfreude at people like those being forced to
endure a little of the attention of the state that they prescribe
for others as penance for their own hypocrisy.
Geez, I'm long-winded today.
Jeff P.|1.5.06 @ 6:15PM|#
Lenny Bruce's Masked Man said it best: "I like what they do with homosexuals: they put'em in prison with a bunch of other men."
|1.5.06 @ 6:15PM|#
Probably an Oklahoma/Texas one. However, if there was no offers or
requests of fees, this probably falls under the scope of Lawrence
vs. Texas, and could probably be challenged. I don't see the pastor
wishing the notoriety, however.
|1.5.06 @ 6:24PM|#
So lemme get this straight (so to speak):
You cannot offer someone money for sex.
You cannot offer someone sex for money.
and now You cannot offer someone sex.
fuck this I am going to Djibouti.
|1.5.06 @ 6:25PM|#
What makes this guy "anti-gay"? All I could find in the article
relevant to that issue was the following:
"He has also spoken out against same-sex marriage and in support of
a Southern Baptist Convention directive urging its 42,000 churches
to befriend gays and lesbians and try to convince them that they
can become heterosexual 'if they accept Jesus Christ as their
savior and reject their "sinful, destructive lifestyle."'"
I would imagine that "spoken out against same-sex marriage" means
that he is against having the government recognizing same-sex
relationships as marriages. By this reasoning, everyone who agrees
with the laws of 49 states plus the federal government is
"anti-gay."
As for befriending gays and lesbians and trying to persuade them to
give up their lifestyle: If you sincerely believed that a friend of
yours was endangering his moral or physical health by engaging in
certain behavior, wouldn't you want to persuade him to your point
of view? If you saw a supposed friend of yours ruining his life
with alcohol, or voting Republican, would you shrug your shoulders
and say it was none of your business? What kind of friendship would
that be?
Notice that this Baptist policy, as summarized in the story, says
nothing about putting people in prison for having sex, whether in a
hotel or in a private residence.
Where does the "poetic-justice schadenfreude" come in? Given the
positions attributed to him in this article, "poetic justice" would
consist of the following:
(a) The government wouldn't endorse his sexual habits (which he's
never asked the government to do, so far as I know).
(b) Some Baptists might "befriend" him and try to persuade him to
quit having sex with strange men.
Maybe if he'd called for locking up gay people, then this arrest
might be "poetic justice." Judging solely from the article, he
hasn't called for such arrests.
|1.5.06 @ 6:44PM|#
He was arrested for offering to engage in an act of lewdness? So
I assume the lewd act is oral sex? And it is illegal in OK to even
offer to engage in a lewd act when there is no money/compensation
involved ? And this justifies impounding the man's Mercedes?
Does this mean that I could be arrested for telling someone to
"suck my dick" in OK City ?
As much as I personally am glad it happened to this particular
fellow, the law does seem kind of fucked up.
|1.5.06 @ 6:47PM|#
Bonar Law,
What part of "befriend gays and lesbians and try to convince them
that they can become heterosexual ... reject their 'sinful,
destructive lifestyle'" sounds accepting of homosexuality to
you?
Being Pro-Gay means "Everybody should be gay".
Being Pro-Choice means "Everybody to his own."
Being Anti-Gay means "Nobody should be gay."
Which choice do you think Mr. Latham choses?
Even if he believes he is doing the right thing, he is still
anti-gay, just as John Walters is anti-pot even though he thinks he
is doing the right thing. Motive does not change the
definition.
|1.5.06 @ 6:55PM|#
BL:
Leaving aside the troll bait in your "give up the lifestyle"
section (it's amazing how one only needs to see the term "gay
lifestyle" to understand everything you need to know about
another's positions on things):
Why poetic justice? It's simple: about a billion men, every day,
proposition women for sex. It's called hitting on her, chatting her
up, making your move, etc in lots of strange locales such as bars,
clubs, and social gatherings of all kinds. Now, due to the
organized and hyperbolic anti-gay rhetoric of Christian and other
religious leaders, gay men and women in the majority of the country
do not have the freedom or peace of mind to pursue the same
interests, whether in romance or casual sex, so they end up in sad,
scary out-of-the-way places such as street corners and rest stops,
where they are easy bait for police playing "bag the fag." Thus,
gay men already nervous / scared about their orientation go through
the anguish of public embarrassment and criminal penalties. If men
like this weren't making "teh gay" the focus of their ministries,
fewer men would be on the sidewalk asking for blow jobs. Therefore,
this pastor's perp walk is oh-so-classic justice as he now faces
the hellish situation he helped strengthen for others.
|1.5.06 @ 6:57PM|#
I really don't see how the authorities justified this one. There
was no offer of money. KMW is right, Lawrence v. Texas invalidated
sodomy laws entirely, so that can't be it. (Well, it is Oklahoma,
so maybe the pony express hasn't dropped off their copy of the 2004
decision yet.) The only thing it could possible be would be public
lewdness, which requires the pastor actually removing clothing in a
sensitive area, but the article doesn't say that, either. This has
all the marks of the local authorities deciding to harass both of
the gays in their town. What a lovely use of taxpayer funds. I hope
they didn't have any drunk driving accidents or murders that
weekend.
I share Julian's schadenfreude, however, about the guy who got
caught.
Captain Holly|1.5.06 @ 7:00PM|#
The article makes it clear the undercover cop was there because
of complaints about male prostitution in the area. So this incident
wasn't just the good Rev. asking a nice young man for a hummer; it
was a cash-for-services kind of thing, in which case most PD's will
confiscate the vehicle of the potential john.
Ironically, in the article the Rev. describes homosexuality as a
"sinful, destructive lifestyle". It certainly was in this case, at
least for him.
|1.5.06 @ 7:01PM|#
I really don't see how the authorities justified this one. There
was no offer of money. KMW is right, Lawrence v. Texas invalidated
sodomy laws entirely, so that can't be it. (Well, it is Oklahoma,
so maybe the pony express hasn't dropped off their copy of the 2004
decision yet.) The only thing it could possible be would be public
lewdness, which requires the pastor actually removing clothing in a
sensitive area, but the article doesn't say that, either. This has
all the marks of the local authorities deciding to harass both of
the gays in their town. What a lovely use of taxpayer funds. I hope
they didn't have any drunk driving accidents or murders that
weekend.
I share Julian's schadenfreude, however, about the guy who got
caught.
|1.5.06 @ 7:03PM|#
ChigacoTom,
In short, yes. Lewdness is very vague.
In long:
Oklahoma Statute Chapter 21.1029 sub A.2
21.1029.
Engaging in prostitution, etc.
Soliciting or procuring
Residing or being in place for prohibited purpose
Aiding, abetting or participating -
Child prostitution.
A. It shall further be unlawful:
1. To engage in prostitution, lewdness, or assignation;
2. To solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit
an act of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution, with himself or
herself;
3. To reside in, enter, or remain in any house, place, building, or
other structure, or to enter or remain in any vehicle, trailer, or
other conveyance with the intent of committing an act of
prostitution, lewdness, or assignation; or
4. To aid, abet, or participate in the doing of any of the acts
prohibited in paragraph 1, 2 or 3 of this subsection.
|1.5.06 @ 7:10PM|#
Oops, meant to add to that.
Assignation is a secret rendevouz, particularly of lovers. It is
listed as distinct from prostitution (sex for money). Technically,
going into a bar and saying "Hey baby, wanna go to a motel" would
probably qualify though I doubt that it would be prosecuted.
|1.5.06 @ 7:21PM|#
Kwix
That's exactly my point. Crimes like this are a joke, since the
same "crime" happens in a thousand social situations among straight
people all the time. It's only when it's gay ppl involved that
"morals" are brought up.
|1.5.06 @ 7:32PM|#
I googled this story, and one thing that seems to be apparent is
that the cop was doing an undercover prostitution sting.
I've heard of female undercover cops arresting guys just for saying
they look pretty. Maybe the cop was a little too full of himself
that day.
Although, Kwix points out there are dumb laws a work too. I hear
it's still technically illegal to cohabitate in Florida.
BTW, the church board has placed the pastor on leave because of
this.
|1.5.06 @ 7:36PM|#
This story reminds me of the wisdom of George Carlin, as it
pertains to prostitution:
"Why is it illegal to sell something it's perfectly legal to give
away for free?"
Only now it seems it's illegal to even give it away. WTF?
|1.5.06 @ 7:44PM|#
KMW,
I hear it's still technically illegal to cohabitate in
Florida.
You would be correct.
Florida Statute, Ch. 798
One of the reasons I am glad to no longer be living there.
|1.5.06 @ 8:01PM|#
This one's right up there with NY Governor George Pataki's pro-Rockefeller Drug Law spokeswoman getting busted for crack in late December, new today at the Drug Policy Alliance blog.
|1.5.06 @ 8:01PM|#
Maybe Oklahoma City has a law against hypocrisy. Maybe it is considered lewd to preach one thing and do another. But I do agree that impounding his 2005 Mercedes does seem a bit harsh. How many collection plates will he need to pass to get that back?
|1.5.06 @ 8:36PM|#
The good pastor just needed to do a porn video instead and everything would have been alright. Paying people to have sex on film is perfectly legal (generally) whereas just paying them to have sex isn't.
Pooh|1.5.06 @ 8:44PM|#
Ironically, in the article the Rev. describes homosexuality
as a "sinful, destructive lifestyle". It certainly was in this
case, at least for him.
Practicing what you preach, and all that.
Franklin Harris|1.5.06 @ 8:50PM|#
"What kind of sick dystopia makes it a crime to offer
someone a hummer?"
"We," "Anthem," "1984," "Equilibrium," and probably something awful
by Margaret Atwood. Hummers, however, are perfectly legal in the
"Brave New World" so long as you remember to take your pills. And
it may be OK for THX-1138 to give you one, since they can't get
anyone pregnant.
|1.5.06 @ 8:52PM|#
"Even if he believes he is doing the right thing, he is still
anti-gay, just as John Walters is anti-pot even though he thinks he
is doing the right thing. Motive does not change the
definition."
The analogy might work better if John Walters (sp?), instead of
trying to put pot-users in prison, simply didn't want the
government to conduct official commitment ceremonies between pot
smokers and their dealers, and if he wanted to befriend stoners and
persuade them to quit smoking.
"If men like this weren't making 'teh gay' the focus of their
ministries, fewer men would be on the sidewalk asking for blow
jobs."
I confess that I don't quite see the connection. Preaching against
certain kinds of behavior makes the behavior more common? This is
actually an encouraging trend, given that
left-wing religious types are preaching in favor of increased
government spending. This should result in budget cuts any time
now!
Perhaps you could show me some comparative statistics about public
solicitation in (say) the liberated cities of Boston or San
Francisco versus the statistics in repressed areas like Dubuque or
Austin. If there's more public solicitation in Dubuque than Boston,
then you may have made a start in demonstrating your case.
|1.5.06 @ 9:13PM|#
At least it wasn't lewdness with intent to swallow. How long will it take to ring up the value of an '05 Merced in storage charges? Either way, he can kiss any valuables in the car goodbye.
|1.5.06 @ 9:14PM|#
"So was the cop male or female?"
The article says "plainclothes policeman" and references an
investigation of "male prostitutes", so I'd say "male" is a fair
assumption.
|1.5.06 @ 9:26PM|#
My main question is: is it ever going to be time for right-minded people to take action to defeat, and punish, police officers who handuff people, throw them in a cell, and steal their cars for things like this?
|1.6.06 @ 12:19AM|#
As much as I like to believe I'm fairly permissive, and as glad
as I am that the anti-gay wingnut Bible-thumper got his
hypocrisy-closet door thrown open for the world to see, I'm still a
little surprised that there is such a knee-jerk reaction here
against the concept of public lewdness legislation. I don't see how
Lawrence enters into it, since that involved private
consensual activity in the privacy of one's own home.
Have any of you ever lived near an area frequented by men looking
for sex? By area, I mean, say, a small park, or a small portion of
a larger park, or a particular block. Such areas aren't
particularly pleasant, whatever your feelings about homosexuality
or prostitution. Such areas attract crime because they attract a
boatload of easy pickin's. Men who are hanging out in a dimly lit
corner of a park looking to get or give BJs after telling their
wives they are working late are unlikely to report being mugged.
Even out gay men more inclined to frequent such areas rather than a
proper gay pick-up bar or sex club, which are much safer, aren't
nearly as likely to go running to the police as gay men who aren't
so inclined.
Lewdness laws, when judiciously enforced (as opposed to rigorously
enforced or enforced in manner designed to target specific
populations), serve a valid purpose, I think. I don't think the
police ought to spend lots of time and money looking for problems
where there really aren't any, but often there are genuine problems
and these laws come in handy in those cases. How would you suggest
cleaning up areas that need it without them?
|1.6.06 @ 12:33AM|#
Bonar,
Your attempted rephrasing of my statements is...interesting, but
not correct. And as for your oh-so-brave challenge to defend
solicitation numbers in cities versus rural areas: those numbers
would mostly be prostitution, yes? And not what we are discussing
here and thus irrelevant.
The issue at heart here is the same as that of any "forbidden"
desire or market item. You can still get what you want, but in a
more dangerous, less above-board, and usually more expensive
manner, be it guns, drugs or sex.
The minister is preaching against the quaintly-named "homosexual
lifestyle", telling them gays are evil, wrong, sinful, destroying
American, etc., thus keeping gays in the closet, unable to simply
be, the same way a straight person can. Forced to
try to find love and sex in places under the radar, be it free or
for sale (rest stops or street corners), closeted in-denial gays
then feel guilty for indulging their natural desires, so they
profess even stronger to themselves they will never "be gay." By
increasing the drumbeat of "evil/sinful/unnatural/Communist" gays,
this minister is making it more likely that men in the closet will
engage in street corner behavior instead of finding real
relationships.
I am not addressing the concept of prostitution; the article and
discussion thus far has been "propositioning a plainclothes cop for
oral sex." Prostitution is on street corners because it is illegal,
not because some of its practictioners may or may not be gay.
|1.6.06 @ 12:44AM|#
mcubed,
You make excellent points, no doubt. I think, though, the the
situation could be resolved through the relaxation against sex
clubs in general. The guys are not in the parks because free sex is
illegal. And as for the out men, those guys going for a blow job or
a quickie in the stalls don't want to dress up, buy a $10 drink and
listen to yet another remix of "Hollaback Girl." All of them want
sex but quick. Since there is no legal place to provide such a
thing, really, and those things that come close (bathhouses) force
in-the-closet gays to cross that visibility line they are so afraid
of, the alley and the park remain the place of choice.
If gays had equal visibility and acceptance in our society, if they
were not afraid to even express who they were let alone what they
want, then guess what? The market (libertarian triple word score)
would work out a solution for people's needs: Someone would sell
cheap, clean, legal stalls somewhere (condoms included!).
|1.6.06 @ 3:03AM|#
"Have any of you ever lived near an area frequented by men
looking for sex?"
yes. we call it...manhattan!
|1.6.06 @ 6:13AM|#
God is making an example out of him to show what happens when
you dont resist your gay urges. it is a destructive lifestyle
choice indeed.
From what I understand reading about religious "anti-gays" it is
apparent they actually do believe that everyone is born homosexual
but god-fearing men must simply ignore those urges and the calling
of satan. Good Christians are all born queer but they "choose" to
embrace Jesus by only having heterosexual intercourse in the
missionary position.
|1.6.06 @ 7:29AM|#
Good Christians are all born queer but they "choose" to
embrace Jesus by only having heterosexual intercourse in the
missionary position.
Since I'm in a blasphemous mood this morning...
Assuming he existed at all, and ignoring that whole The Da
Vinci Code nonsense, I find the fact that Jesus was an
unmarried man who hung around with 13 other guys a bit
suspicious.
Come out of the closet Christianity! If I'm right, your entire
faith is built on a gay gang bang. So knock off with the Leviticus
20:13 bullshit.
|1.6.06 @ 8:21AM|#
Dystopia???
dys-/dus- (Latin/Greek roots: 'bad' or 'abnormal') + -topos (Greek
root: 'place') = 'bad place'
eu- (Greek root: 'good') / ou- (Greek root: 'not') + -topos (Greek
root: 'place') = 'good/no place'
dystopia n. an imaginary wretched place, the opposite of
utopia
utopia n. a place or state of ideal perfection, the opposite of
dystopia
|1.6.06 @ 9:45AM|#
I predict not guilty. Take the case in front of a God fearing
jury and repeat the following:
"I am not a homosexual, but the lord has led me to minister these
young men who are so clearly in pain. I could sense that this man
was uncomfortable with the homosexual lifestyle and felt that if I
could get him away from the others and share with him the word of
God, he could be saved. Sometimes to do the work of God you break
the law of man. As Jesus walked with the lepers, I must walk with
the homosexuals so that they might see the light. It is my
duty."
|1.6.06 @ 10:59AM|#
I could sense that this man was uncomfortable with the
homosexual lifestyle and felt that if I could get him away from the
others and share with him the word of God, he could be
saved.
So he was an undercover missionary!
I think you may be right, though. That story is plausible enough to
make for reasonable doubt...
|1.6.06 @ 11:15AM|#
Oh yes, I am sure he will "get off" on--I mean, for this crime, as he has many times before, no doubt.
|1.6.06 @ 12:20PM|#
ave any of you ever lived near an area frequented by men
looking for sex? By area, I mean, say, a small park, or a small
portion of a larger park, or a particular block. Such areas aren't
particularly pleasant, whatever your feelings about homosexuality
or prostitution.
Dude, are you kidding me? I live in East Lakeview, Chicago, less
than four blocks from the stretch of Halsted St. known as
"Boystown". It's full of gay men looking for sex, but it's also a
ridiculously nice neighborhood where the only real dangers are not
finding a parking space and having your studio apartment gentrified
into luxury condominiums.
|1.6.06 @ 12:54PM|#
"But when I propositioned a cop down on Thirty-Fourth and Vine/He broke my little bottle of Love Potion Number Nine . . . "
|1.6.06 @ 4:06PM|#
Every time something like this happens in my home state, I'm
never sure if I should laugh or cry (maybe both). He should have
stuck to Tulsa, which at one time was considered to have the
highest gay population after San Francisco (that's been a few
years, don't know if it would still be true).
Or, a fellow Oklahoman likes to say that Oklahoma doesn't always
follow those "Supreme Court 'suggestions'".
|1.6.06 @ 5:16PM|#
Daniel Montiel,
"The issue at heart here is the same as that of any 'forbidden'
desire or market item. You can still get what you want, but in a
more dangerous, less above-board, and usually more expensive
manner, be it guns, drugs or sex. . . . By increasing the drumbeat
of 'evil/sinful/unnatural/Communist' gays, this minister is making
it more likely that men in the closet will engage in street corner
behavior instead of finding real relationships."
Your inclusion of "drugs" in the list of "guns, drugs or sex" is
presumably a reference to the prohibitionist laws against certain
drugs. Thus, you seem (as far as I can tell) to be making an
argument about the effects of black markets, an argument which
would be applicable if this fellow wanted gay sex to be a
crime.
Maybe there are other sources, but based on the article alone, this
Baptist guy has *not* called for a prohibition policy on gay sex as
such. The only *government* policy mentioned in the article is
non-recognition of same-sex relationships. The other policy he
purportedly champions is befriending gay people and trying to
persuade them that gay sex is bad.
Is this really the equivalent of criminal penalties, as the
comparison to drug prohibition would imply?
I think it would be faily derogatory to gay people to claim that
they're such delicate flowers.
|1.6.06 @ 10:21PM|#
Bonar, if it is your position that you truly don't recognize the
phenomenal cultural, religious, and social pressure about and shame
of being gay in this culture and country, and that you truly don't
understand how religious leaders have contributed to this effect,
and that you truly don't comprehend how elected and law enforcement
officials harass and intimidate gay businesses, and that all of the
above is truly just a mystery to you, then you are either
incredibly uninformed or lying. And if the former, I have a very
simple assignment for you which may help with your insulting and
simplistic definition of "delicate flowers". Go look up the suicide
rates of gay teenagers compared to straight and get back to
me.
It's annoying enough that your posts are in bad faith, but
pretending that a message of "gay sex is bad" is such a simple
little thing is really phoning it in, especially for a troll. At
least work to shock us.
|1.7.06 @ 12:32AM|#
"you truly don't comprehend how elected and law enforcement
officials harass and intimidate gay businesses . . . you are either
incredibly uninformed or lying. . . . your posts are in bad faith .
. . a troll"
Gosh, call it a hunch, but I have the impression that you're not
feeling very friendly.
How did we get to the subject of government harassment of gay
businesses?
|1.7.06 @ 1:23PM|#
Gosh, call it a hunch, but since you keep avoiding the substance of my every post, I'm going to stick with my earlier statements.
|1.7.06 @ 7:25PM|#
Your criticism is repressing me and my fundamentalist
beliefs!
The substance of your every post is my supreme evilness, and since
I won't be able to persuade you that I'm not a fascist conspirator
against gays, I don't see any point addressing that
"substance."
|1.7.06 @ 9:50PM|#
Bonar Law said: "What makes this guy "anti-gay"?
If I can intrude on this discussion, let me ask Bonar Law a few
questions: Can you see how describing homosexuality as a "sinful,
destructive lifestyle" might reasonably be considered pretty damned
anti-gay? Or how comparing homosexuality to alcoholism (as such a
destructive lifestyle) might also be reasonably viewed as anti-gay?
Finally, can you see that, given that the govt (or at least most of
them) is more than happy to officially endorse committed monogamous
relationships between heterosexual couples but refuses to do the
exact same thing for homosexual couples, supporting this position
might reasonably be considered a bit less innocuous than "simply
[not wanting] the government to conduct official commitment
ceremonies"?
|1.7.06 @ 10:56PM|#
"Can you see how describing homosexuality as a 'sinful,
destructive lifestyle' might reasonably be considered pretty damned
anti-gay? Or how comparing homosexuality to alcoholism (as such a
destructive lifestyle) might also be reasonably viewed as anti-gay?
Finally, can you see that, given that the govt (or at least most of
them) is more than happy to officially endorse committed monogamous
relationships between heterosexual couples but refuses to do the
exact same thing for homosexual couples, supporting this position
might reasonably be considered a bit less innocuous than 'simply
[not wanting] the government to conduct official commitment
ceremonies'?"
The answers to your questions are "yes," "yes," and "yes. The
Baptist guy's positions could be construed as "anti-gay" by someone
who's committed to the opposite positions.
I don't stand or fall on the definition of
"anti-gay"; but let me point out that it's obviously a loaded term,
just like "pro-family" on the right. The term is sufficiently vague
that it could be expanded to encompass just about anyone who isn't
a full champion of gay liberation.
For example, imagine the following hypothetical conversation
between a libertarian and a gay-liberationist:
GAY-LIBBER: You are anti-gay!
LIBERTARIAN: How dare you assert such a thing! I am totally in
favor of repealing the sodomy statutes; I want to abolish all legal
discrimination between gay and straight; I want the government to
issue all the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples who ask for
it . . .
GAY-LIBBER: I know all that, but it's not good enough. You're still
anti-gay.
LIBERTARIAN: That's absurd!
GAY-LIBBER: Let me ask just one question. Do you want to give
private companies the right to fire their employees just because
they're gay?
LIBERTARIAN: In the absense of contractual stipulations to the
contrary, a private employer should be free to hire and fire
whomever he wants. That's a basic free-market principle, but the
progressive-minded companies aren't firing gays, and discrimination
gives companies a competitive disadvantage, so it's not a real
problem.
GAY-LIBBER: I asked you a simple question. Do you or do you not
want to give private companies the right to fire people simply
because they're gay? Even if they have a government-issued marriage
license? Yes or no?
LIBERTARIAN: Yes, but . . .
GAY-LIBBER: I've heard enough. I'm putting you on my Anti-Gay Wall
of Shame just next to Rick Santorum. And if you ever get arrested
in a male-prostitution sting, I will call it "poetic
justice."
LIBERTARIAN: But I just said I'm not in favor of locking up gay
people, so how could it be poetic justice for me to be arrested for
being gay?
GAY-LIBBER: I'm not listening to your excuses, you anti-gay
bastard.
See where broad defninitions of "anti-gay" lead us?
|1.8.06 @ 2:19AM|#
Bonar,
Your move into a hypothetical hyperbole of "anti-gay" is missing
the point of this thread: we don't need to discuss hypotheticals,
because this pastor's actions give us plenty to analyze in the here
and now. Your unwillingness to deal with the real-world actions of
this pastor and others like him, defending some hypothetical man
from the unjust label of homophobia, continues your pattern of
dealing not with subject matter at hand but your city of straw
men.
|1.8.06 @ 9:22AM|#
DM:
The "harass[ment] and intimidat[ion of] gay businesses" are,
similarly, not directly related to the topic of the Baptist guy's
behavior.
But I'm not complaining -- let 1,000 mutant topics emerge from the
thread, let 1,000 schools of thought contend!
|1.8.06 @ 11:21AM|#
Bonar Law,
It's true that "anti-gay" can be defined pretty broadly, but your
hypothetical example bears virtually no resemblance to the actual
situation here, where there's very little room for ambiguity.
Someone who explicitly calls homosexuality a "sinful, destructive
lifestyle" is not even in the same ballpark as someone who thinks
employers should be able to hire and fire based on sexual
orientation; that comparison is ludicrous.
|1.8.06 @ 11:30AM|#
Bonar Law,
I guess the upshot is, in response to your question "What makes
this guy 'anti-gay'?", I think the answer is pretty damned obvious.
While it's certainly true that there are grey areas in the notion
of anti-gay, it's just as true that there are also areas of black
and white. And if considering homosexuality to be inherently a
"sinful, destructive lifestyle" isn't unambiguously anti-gay, it's
hard to see what is.
|1.8.06 @ 5:05PM|#
I�ll reiterate that I�m not going to stand or fall on the
definition of �anti-gay.� This guy wants to give gay people
friendly advice about their behavior and perpetuate the existing
legal definition of marriage. Stipulate that these are the wrong
policies, still it�s hardly on the same level as locking up gay
people.
I think that someone whose views on gay rights are less �advanced�
than the views of some gay activist groups should be hesitant to
support a broad definition of �anti-gay.� Since a key goal of some
gay activist groups (like Lambda legal, see
http://tinyurl.com/9pha9) is to make private discrimination against
gays illegal, I thought that the libertarian support for
entrepreneurial freedom might get stigmatized as �anti-gay,� if we
allow a sufficiently broad definition of the term.
The issue towards which I am groping (if you�ll pardon the
expression) is: When is it appropriate to say that a person�s
publicly-expressed views on gay behavior are not only �anti-gay,�
but *so* anti-gay that his arrest for soliciting constitutes
�poetic justice�?
Presumably, if I go around saying that tobacco smokers should all
be interned in re-education camps, and later I get caught (or
*allegedly* caught) in New York city smoking on the sidewalk, and
Mayor Bloomberg ships me to the Smoker Rehabilitation Center, then
that would be �poetic justice� � that is, it might still be wrong
to punish me that way, but we have an intuitive idea that I got
what was coming to me in a cosmic sense. Likewise if we can find
any quote from this Baptist guy saying people who engage in gay sex
should be locked up (*is* there such a quote?), then his arrest
could be called poetic justice.
If a person can deserve poetic justice in the form of arrest
*without* advocating the arrest of gay people, then how do we limit
that principle? I gave the example of someone who advocates the
rights of private businesses. Limiting that freedom, so far as the
hiring, promotion and firing of gays is concerned, is a very big
deal
|1.8.06 @ 5:22PM|#
I found an example of a libertarian getting accused of being
anti-gay, although I admit it was not because of the
employment-discrimination issue. Professor Hans Hoppe of UNLV got
into trouble because he included gay people in a discussion of
�time preference� during a lecture on economics. Hoppe said that
gay people tend not to have children, and as a result tend to do
less long-term economic planning. It appears that Hoppe�s reference
to the alleged short-term thinking of gay people was explicitly
intended as a slap at John Maynard Keynes and his famous remark
that �in the long run we are all dead�.
A student was offended and complained to the university
authorities, who disciplined Hoppe (they later backtracked).
The offended student explained his rationale for complaining: "When
the door closes and the lecture began, [Hoppe] needs to make sure
he is remaining as politically correct as possible." Also, said the
student, Hoppe �really didn't care about the situation at all and
the fact that I felt very uncomfortable with what happened."
Link to a news story about the controversy:
http://tinyurl.com/cgoq5
The Mises Institute�s page about the case:
http://blog.mises.org/hoppe/
Stipulating that Hoppe was anti-gay, would it be "poetic justice"
if he got arrested trying to pick up a Las Vegas hooker?
|1.8.06 @ 6:03PM|#
"friendly advice" !?!? Are you kidding? This guy telling
homosexuals how to reject their "sinful, destructive lifestyle" is
"friendly advice" to you?
Also, as Daniel Montel said, you continue to discuss hypotheticals
on that lie on the grey edges of a broad definition of anti-gay (or
anti-whatever), where many people here and elsewhere would not
consider them anti-gay, instead of addressing this particular case,
which is much more clear. You don't have to go so far as advocating
imprisonment of homosexuals to be anti-gay. And the reason people
here have been writing about this pastor in particular in regard to
a notion of "anti-gay" is that you explicitly asked in the first
sentence of your first post "What makes this guy 'anti-gay'?" As to
what exactly constitutes poetic justice, I guess I don't find that
question as interesting as you do, but maybe you'll have other
takers if the thread isn't dead. Have a good night.
|1.8.06 @ 6:33PM|#
I can only repeat my previous remarks that I don't stand or fall on the definition of "anti-gay." I took it to mean "anti-people-who-are-gay." You know, "gay" as a noun, as in "gays and straights." Maybe I got it wrong. Maybe it means only "anti-the-behavior." I get the impression that some people see these concepts as identical.
Tod|1.8.06 @ 9:23PM|#
The police _say_ it was a prostitution sting, due to citizen complaints. It was in the parking lot of the Habana Inn, though, "the southwest's largest gay resort". It's very unlikely there were any actual citizen complaints about prostitution; whatever complaints there were, they were about gay people living gay lives, and that's what was being stung.
|1.8.06 @ 9:43PM|#
Wow, Bonar got p0//n3d
And like many highly educated idiots he seems to think that
changing the subject has eliminated the earlier discussion.
Except...it's all there.
Daniel M and J, if ever I have a chance to meet you guys the drinks
of your choice are on me.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245