Box Turtle Bulletin

No. There is no such thing as principled opposition to those who are harming no one.

Richard W. Fitch

If it were genuinely ‘principled’, it would be framed in the context of “These are my religious convictions which I urge you to adopt.” And not “This is the WORD of God! It trumps any civil, secular rights that you may think you have. Therefore, we are free to deprive you of the rights we enjoy.”

Bruce Garrett

Yes. Principled opposition to homosexuality is an oxymoron. Is there a principled antisemitism? A principled racism? A principled misogyny?

How principled is it to denounce this proposed Ugandian law on the one hand, and keep dispensing claptrap about homosexuals and homosexuality on the other? A principle that keeps making you tell lies about other people is going to eventually rot your soul from the inside out, and even if you don’t end up advocating the murder of those people in the end you will find yourself looking the other way when it happens because your principle wouldn’t suffer your having a conscience.

Note…and I hope nobody ever forgets this…how these religious conservatives who are now speaking out against this law only did so when it became a big PR mess. Had the mainstream news media not picked up on this story they would have without a doubt kept their mouths shut. They had to be fairly dragged kicking and screaming to say anything at all. That is what their principle is doing to them. It will leave them hollow shells of what could have been decent and moral men and women once.

Character, so the saying goes, is what you do when nobody is looking…

Mel

It is a dangerous strategy for those of us in the glbt community to keep reflexively calling our opponents ‘homophobes’. We saw just such a backlash in California when many of our friends and family chose the welfare of children before the sexual freedoms afforded our lifestyle. We can no longer say that just because someone knows gay people that they will support our rights.

Many gay Republicans oppose changing the long-standing definition of marriage to include gay couples. Should we call them ‘homophobes’? Similarly, many gay Republicans as well as acclaimed author, Andrew Sullivan, fiercely oppose hate crimes laws (aka thought crimes). Would anyone call them ‘homophobes’?

We will never be taken seriously as a community until we begin respecting the sincere beliefs of the faith community. During the era of Jim Crow, there were a significant number of African-Americans who believed deeply in the separation and protection of racial purity. Would any privileged white man dare call these iconoclasts racist? We need to tone down our rhetoric and start facing the fact that many people will never believe in our alternative sexual practices.

Ken

Mel – if you are against full equality *nothing to do with hate crimes* then your a bigot. If you are against equality in marriage, your a bigot, regardless to why / how.

Just remember, in the 50’s and 60’s, had they voted on black civil rights, there would still be jim crow laws.

Attitudes changed, in part because being racist is shameful and was made that way.

We need to continue to point out bigotry is NOT ok, and that regardless as to whatever bigoted beliefs you have that stand in the way of equality, your still a bigot.

gar

No.

CPT_Doom

Let us not forget that most of the anti-gay hate movement actively supported similar laws criminalizing LGBT people and denounced the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, making their hypocrisy even more obvious and blatant.

Priya Lynn

Mel said “We saw just such a backlash in California when many of our friends and family chose the welfare of children before the sexual freedoms afforded our lifestyle.”.

That was a rather bigoted comment in itself. People weren’t faced with a choice between the welfare of children and “the sexual freedoms afforded our lifestyle” – its simply a lie that they were. If they were choosing the welfare of chilren they’d have voted to allow the children of gay couples the safety and security of legally married parents. Further, gayness isn’t a “lifestyle” anymore than heterosexuality is, its a core aspect of who we are and your suggestion that the majority has a right to dictate whether or not we have sexual freedom is obscene.

Mel said “Many gay Republicans oppose changing the long-standing definition of marriage to include gay couples. Should we call them â€˜homophobesâ€™?”.

Of course they’re homophobes – they’re self-loathing homophobes hoping to obtain the approval of those with power over them through obsequiousness.

Mel said “Similarly, many gay Republicans as well as acclaimed author, Andrew Sullivan, fiercely oppose hate crimes laws (aka thought crimes). Would anyone call them â€˜homophobesâ€™?”.

I certainly would. Such people frequently only opposed hate crimes laws after it was proposed to include gays in them, they never had any complaints about hate crimes laws prior to this. That is the epitome of homophobia.

Mel said “We will never be taken seriously as a community until we begin respecting the sincere beliefs of the faith community.”.

Beliefs don’t automatically deserve respect just because they are sincere. Many racists sincerely believe blacks and jews are inferior, I don’t here you saying we should respect those beliefs.

Mel said “During the era of Jim Crow, there were a significant number of African-Americans who believed deeply in the separation and protection of racial purity. Would any privileged white man dare call these iconoclasts racist?”.

Any rational just person absolutely would call such “iconoclasts” racists – that’s what they were. Anyone who thinks the black race shouldn’t be polluted with white blood is just as much a racist as a person who thinks the white race shouldn’t be polluted with black blood.

wackadoodle

You need to start having a disclaimer on your posts Mel, it’s amazing how many people don’t notice the sarcasm when you say stuff like this:

“During the era of Jim Crow, there were a significant number of African-Americans who believed deeply in the separation and protection of racial purity”

He’s pointing out how silly the ‘principled opposition’ would look if it were fighting some other group’s equality and how no one would believe for a second they’re not racist.

Ben in Oakland

Mel’s post is the same as earlier in another thread.

It is either clumsy satire or clumsy bigotry.

Please clarify, Mel. It will hlep.

Grant

To Priya – an excellent post. Three cheers.

Re: Andrew Sullivan and hate crimes – just to clarify: it’s my understanding after reading his site for several years that in principle, he is against all hate-crime laws, but feels if such laws exist to specially protect people on the basis of race, gender, religious affiliation, then they should also include sexual orientation or gender identity.

Timothy Kincaid

This is an interesting question. But it is based on a conflation of a number of different ideas, a distinction that I believe is lost on many in the gay community.

The commentary speaks of “opposition to homosexuality”, but this term is not defined. And to understand whether there is such a thing as principled opposition, we need to know what type of opposition, and whose homosexuality, we are talking about.

There are those who oppose the homosexuality of others through political campaigns, and I would agree that it is difficult to see admirable principle in their efforts. But “opposition” is not single faceted.

Sometimes we LGBT people can see the world through a dichotomous lens: supports and haters. And we are also inclined to believe that all statements, no matter to whom made or in what context, are directed to each of us individually. This is not always the case.

Sometimes a discussion on homosexuality is not about your homosexuality at all. Sometimes statements and proclamations apply only to those to whom they are directed. There are those who oppose homosexual behavior and identity for those who are within their community, and don’t give a fig about what you do.

And I do not agree that there are no principled arguments that can be made within a self-defined community.

To put this question in perspective, I propose that we consider two other questions:

Is there such a thing as principled opposition to pre-marital sex?

I think that most of us can see that a principled argument could be made, whether or not we agree with it. We know that those who counsel their children to wait have firm and solid (and non-bigoted) reasons.

And we are well aware that most who have such a principled opposition are perfectly capable of not seeking to enforce their principles through law. In fact, we probably know people who disapprove of sex out of wedlock, but have no animus whatsoever to those who choose to engage in such passtime. And most often they see this as a commandment to them, not something they will impose on you.

In the minds of most conservative religious people, this is a parallel opposition, and one they argue. Now, of course, we counter that eventually, at some point, these kids could have sex after marriage, something a gay person in most states cannot.

But that is not what determines whether an argument is principled. And, indeed, they do genuinely believe that a heterosexual that doesn’t ever marry for whatever reason (a population larger than the gay community) should never ever have sex.

And, though this may be difficult for some readers to believe, a great many people are opposed to homosexuality for them but they really don’t object to it for you.

But now let’s take this further:

Is there such a thing as principled opposition to mixed-religion marriage.

Let’s be careful about knee-jerk answers here, because, if not, then all Orthodox Jews are bigots.

Again this is a matter of individuals and communities deciding their own standards. I really doubt that any Orthodox Jews care if Catholics marry Hindus, even though they wouldn’t marry either.

I would caution us not to dismiss all objection to homosexuality as “unprincipled” simply because we disagree with the underlying principles. And let’s avoid demanding that all others – every community of faith or other identity – adopt our beliefs and live by them.

It makes our arguments appear as arbitrary and axiomatic as those who use religious text to justify their bigotry towards us.

Lindoro Almaviva

If abortion really is murder, why does the anti-abortion movement condemn the murder of Dr. George Tiller?

Well, I’d say that certain groups within the anti-abortion groups celebrated the killing of Dr. Thiller.

Furthermore, if abortion is murder, why do anti-abortion people support the death penalty? After all, the death penalty is a form of abortion.

DÃ©sirÃ©e

Well, at wackadoodle and I get it. I have been wondering if Mel isn’t in fact Mel White.

wackadoodle

Now why doesn’t timothy tell us about the other ‘principled oppositions’? Its easy to do it with softball subjects like pre-marital sex and interfaith marriage, lets hear why we shouldn’t be rude and assume someone is a bigot because they oppose marriages between different races or think black’s are a lesser people cursed by god.

Ephilei

Like most questions, it depends how you define “bigotry.” I define “bigotry” to be an opinion not based on reason. Principles require reason, thus bigotry cannot be principled by definition.

But not all heterosexism is bigotry. I used to be heterosexist and I had non-emotional reasons. My reasons were flawed but they were not based on fear or hatred of gays or lesbians. In the process of becoming pro-gay I do not think I have become a better or more caring person. I’m just more informed and having better thinking skills. Obviously, many ex-heterosexists have a different experience. Discerning between bigotted heterosexism and reasonable heterosexism is a matter of judging the heart which only God and that person can do. I can guess that Andrew Marin is not bigoted and Scott Lively is, but that’s only a guess.

I am personally pro-life and view abortion as murder on equal scale to adult murder. I understand and appreciate Gabriel’s question. The reason I don’t kill abortion providers is because I don’t believe murder is ever justified. The ends never justify the means (in moral issues). But I do not understand how believers in pro-life and just war cannot view abortions as an act of war.

I want to emphasize again that calling people bigots and homophobes is counter-productive to the LGBT movement. We want to change minds, not embarrass people. Their minds will only change when they respect us and they will only respect us when we respect them.

Priya Lynn

Timothy said “There are those who oppose homosexual behavior and identity for those who are within their community, and donâ€™t give a fig about what you do.”.

I don’t buy that at all. I’ve never heard of someone who opposes gayness for their group who doesn’t oppose it in general.

Timothy said “Is there such a thing as principled opposition to pre-marital sex?”.

No – if by principled you mean just.

Timothy said “I think that most of us can see that a principled argument could be made, whether or not we agree with it. We know that those who counsel their children to wait have firm and solid (and non-bigoted) reasons”.”

Its one thing to counsel children to wait because they should be physically and mentally mature before having sex, and another thing to say that they shouldn’t have sex if they are not married. Suppose they’re in their 30’s and can’t or don’t want to get married? On what rational, just basis would you deny them the right to have sex?

Timothy said “In fact, we probably know people who disapprove of sex out of wedlock, but have no animus whatsoever to those who choose to engage in such passtime.”.

I’m not buying that either. I have never met a person who popposes pre-marital sex who didn’t also have a problem with other people engaging in it.

Timothy said “And most often the see this as a commandment to them, not something they will impose on you.”.

Of course, that’s why there’s such an obsession with “abstinence-only” programs – they’re not trying to impose their morality on anyone else.

Timothy said “And, though this may be difficult for some readers to believe, a great many people are opposed to homosexuality for them but they really donâ€™t object to it for you.”.

Oh, BS Timothy. There’s a reason why all these people oppose allowing gay couples the right to marry. There’s a reason why they don’t want any accepting portrayals of gayness in schools. And you just finished saying such people oppose “”homosexual” behavior and “identity” for those who are within their community” – you know this isn’t just about themselves, its about telling others what to do who aren’t harming anyone and who are they to be dictating to anyone (within their “community” or not) who they should or should not have sex with?

Timothy said “Is there such a thing as principled opposition to mixed-religion marriage. Letâ€™s be careful about knee-jerk answers here, because, if not, then all Orthodox Jews are bigots.”.

If all orthodox Jews are against mixed-religion marriage then they are bigots. I’m not saying that sums up the whole of their being, but it sums up that aspect of their attitudes. There is no such thing as principled (just) opposition to that which harms no one (mixed religion marriages).

Timothy said “And letâ€™s avoid demanding that all others â€“ every community of faith or other identity â€“ adopt our beliefs and live by them.”.

Who ever did that?! No one’s asking a homophobe to have a same sex marriage. No one’s asking an orthodox Jew to marry a Catholic. No one’s asking a skin-head to marry a black, so spare us your false talk about our arguments being as arbitrary or axiomatic as those who use their religious text to justify their bigotry against us.

Lindoro Almaviva

Tim’s post reminds me of the many people in the LGBT community who hold “principled” opposition to religious institutions and how the opposite sides is very quick to accuse of os religious persecution.

It cutes both ways people.

Chris McCoy

Bigot noun.

1) a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

2) One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Lindoro Almaviva

Cuts, damn it, cuts

Priya Lynn

Ephelei said “The reason I donâ€™t kill abortion providers is because I donâ€™t believe murder is ever justified.”.

Suppose someone is comming at you and your loved ones with a sword and intends to kill all of you. If you have a gun, what are you going to do?

Ryn

Not that many years ago, I had a conversation with a man, a family friend, who believed that the Bible clearly taught that black/white race mixing and interracial marriage was a sin. He believed that God created people to be attracted to their own race and that to be attracted to someone outside of your race was unnatural and going against God’s design. Was that a principled (albeit wrong) religious belief or was it just using scripture to support his existing bigotry? I don’t really know because I can’t know his heart. In any case, no matter how appalled I am by those beliefs, in the end they’re relatively harmless because no matter how sinful he thinks it is, he’s not doing anything to prevent me or anybody else from marrying outside of our race if we so choose.

I think the point I’m trying to make is that in my mind it matters less what people believe than what they do with those beliefs. I believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin and so I’m not going to sleep around, but I’m not going to criminalize or otherwise condemn those who don’t share my beliefs (of course, it’s easy for me to say that, since I’m attracted to the opposite sex nobody’s preventing me from marrying). Likewise, whether I agree with them or not, I think it’s ok for someone to believe homosexuality is sinful so long as they recognize that not everyone shares that belief and don’t try to force others to act based on their personal religious beliefs (and eventually they’ll be just as anachronistic as the person I was describing at the beginning of my post).

Ben in Oakland

priya:

I know what I owuld do. I would hope that I would have enough imagination and courage not to take the easy way out.

It might be “justfiable” murder, but it would astill be murder nonetheless.

Jason D

“Sometimes a discussion on homosexuality is not about your homosexuality at all. Sometimes statements and proclamations apply only to those to whom they are directed. There are those who oppose homosexual behavior and identity for those who are within their community, and donâ€™t give a fig about what you do.”

Timothy, Let’s recolor this (pun intended) to see if it passes the test:

“Sometimes a discussion on blacks is not about your blackness at all. Sometimes statements and proclamations apply only to those to whom they are directed. There are those who oppose black behavior and identity for those who are within their community, and donâ€™t give a fig about what you do.”

I believe that’s a fail, and actually falls into the second definition given for bigotry above by Chris McCoy:

2) One who is strongly partial to oneâ€™s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

IE, Those darling racists we love to hear so much about in this country don’t really care about black people in Africa — in fact, that’s where they think they ALL should go! They just have a problem with blacks in their town, city, dinner, country.

Priya Lynn

So, what are you suggesting Ben, you’d attempt to shoot the guy in the arm, likely miss and be slaughtered? Or would you try to maximize your chances of stopping the murder of you and your loved ones and shoot for the centre of mass? Just how much leeway do you realistically think courage and imagination are going to provide you in such a situation?

Ben in Oakland

I don’t know. I’ve never been in the position. I haven’t fired even a fake gun in years and years.

I’d like to think I could be better than the obvious. I know that I would probably aim right for the balls. better they don’t reproduce.

i also know, given my occasional revenge fanatsies, that I would think very little of causing as much hurt as I could.

Mel

Grant: “itâ€™s my understanding after reading his (Andrew Sullivan’s) site for several years that in principle, he is against all hate-crime laws”

Interesting – can you please state when he first posted such blanket opposition to these civil rights which have for decades covered race and religious lifestyle choice? I’ve never once seen Sullivan comment on the issue until it was proposed that gays be included and then he became outraged. Quite unusual.

Priya Lynn

Come on now Ben, how realistic do you think it is to always be “better than the obvious? Do you really think the police always have an option other than killing someone with a gun or a knife who’s intent on murder? Do you really think you could hit a target of a few square inches and even if you could would you count on that stopping a crazed attacker? Would you really risk the lives of you and your loved ones on such an unlikely shot? I know I wouldn’t and I seriously doubt any rational person faced with such a stark option would either.

Timothy Kincaid

Let’s get this thread back on topic.

RChatt

In brief, the issue is one of tolerance. A person can hold an opinion or belief and live their life according to that principle. If they can’t acknowledge or tolerate that life can be lived differently and still be valid, then that person, by definition, is a bigot.

Sol Invictus

Comment removed: not on topic

Priya Lynn

Comment removed: not on topic

grantdale

Hopefully the next in the series will be…

“Is â€˜Principled Opposition to Jews in My Country Clubâ€™ Different From Bigotry?

(Actually Gabriel, I’m glad you worded the question using “bigotry” rather than “bigot”. Makes it a much more, urhm, principled debate.)

I get what you’re saying Timothy et al, but I’m sorry I don’t see particular religious beliefs as ‘principled’.

Following them doesn’t need an ethical foundation. The ‘explanations’ for much of them are too often (or possibly always ultimately) baseless, demonstrably wrong or even just plainly from cuckooland. The behaviours that can derive from them can be scaldingly cruel because they are not something that can be shown to be universal in application. And religious attitudes towards homosexuality would fall into that category.

I do understand — perfectly — that there is an opposition that bases their stance on religious grounds… but I have also NEVER heard any reasoning from them that is based on principles. Rules, sure. Personal attitudes, sure. Bribery and threats, yep. Repeating what has been said before, certainly. Cobbling together often mutually incompatible circular arguments, uh-huh. Hypocrisy toward out-groups versus in-groups, don’t even get me started.

But principles? No.

One may has well claim you had a principled opposition to gravity. My next question to you would be “And what principle is that based on?”

Take, as example, the so-called ‘Natural Law’ that gets bandied about. It is based on a claim to see ‘design’ in the fact that there are ‘men’ and ‘women’. This, leap of logic, suggests that the only ‘correct’ sex is therefore heterosexual.

But notice that leap in logic. By the same logic one could equally conclude everyone is also ‘designed’ for homosexuality or, even more strongly, designed for bisexuality.

We can distinguish between cold-blooded murder and a legal killing. We can distinguish between rape and having sex. We can distinguish between theft and desperation. We can distinguish between a sociopath and an eccentric. We can distinguish between wrong and different. Those are universal human attributes, even when clouded by passing social structures.

How can we make these distinctions? We rely on a real principle, not a rule.

Now think of all of the above, and why the poles differ; and then try apply that principle to heterosexuality versus homosexuality.

At that point we get to identifying a personal disinterest or even distaste from active opposition (within which I would include making unsolicited degrading remarks).

Frankly I’m also trying to think when opposition to homosexuality hasn’t translated into opposition to homosexuals.

For good reason: being against ‘homosexuality’ is rather like being against gravity. Faintly absurdly Don Quixote. But one can always attack the actors.

I’d welcome an example. Try and think of an occassion that doesn’t take us back to the difference between personal choices for oneself versus interfering in other people’s lives.

—————————–

ps: “Grant” is not us. We’re still together and always posting as “grantdale” :)

Lindoro Almaviva

Comment removed: not on topic

Timothy Kincaid

grantdale,

I think that you are actually arguing that you disagree with whatever principles might be presented in objection to homosexuality (as do I). However, that does not mean that an objection can never be based on principles.

“Principled” does not equate to “based on ideas with which I agree”. Rather, principled means that there is an underlying code of purpose, conduct, or doctrine which is being applied consistently. The opposite of principled is not “bigoted” but arbitrary and capricious.

Jason D

timothy, I think what Grantdale might be alluding to is that the principle isn’t really a principle as it is NOT applied consistently.

For example, all those laws that are supposed to supposedly protect marriage? They leave it wide open to polygamy. One man one woman yes, but that’s only against group marriage. As it is commonly practiced, polygamy is NOT a group marriage. Instead, it is series of marriages. Boy meets girl, Boy marries girl. Boy meets another girl, boy marries her, too. Two marriages, each consisting of one man and one woman. However the groom is the same person in both weddings. There is no mention of how many marriages someone can have at the same time.

There seems to be no sincere interest in banning divorce or —more importantly— remarriage.

I guess I’m saying, I have yet to see someone identify the “principle” without also making excuses for heterosexuals.

Chris H

The body of this post makes the point that there are no non-religious principled stances against homosexuality. If the title of this post were “Is non-religious-based ‘principled opposition to homosexuality’ different from bigotry?”, the I could agree.

But the title does not say that. Rather it asks whether there is ::any:: principled opposition. Taken this broadly, there are principled oppositions to homosexuality when based on religious doctrines and theologies. People who believe in the systematic theology of, say, Wayne Grudem and who see homosexuality as immoral due to the basic tenets of that systematic theology are not bigots; rather, they simply have a different world view. You may disagree with basic tenets of that worldview, but if you take the system to its logical conclusion, it is rational to believe homosexuality is immoral.

So please do not dismiss people as bigots who are merely following a faith that they may find completely rational and self-consistent.

grantdale

Urr, no Timothy.

The opposite of principled is not â€œbigotedâ€ but arbitrary and capricious is something I could actually agree with. But I also think arbitrary and capricious are perfect descriptors for the way many highly religious people deal with homosexuals/ity.

I don’t have to agree with another’s principled stance. (You know us better than that!) But I expect to at least see something other than today’s personal opinion or a regurgitation of someone else’s personal opinion. It needs to apply consistently, and be reasoned.

Otherwise it’s hardly a principle. Sounds more like a mere convenience or an excuse or a narrative or a knee-jerk response or their preferred way. Sorry, maybe I’m just favouring my irreligious science side today.

Or, perhaps somewhat hopelessly, maybe I am trying to reveal a principle behind principles. (God help me.)

R Holmes

There may be a difference in motivation between someone who opposes homosexual equality out of hatred for homosexuals and someone who opposes it because he believes that God commands him to oppose it. To my mind, however, they are still both bigotry. I guess it’s a matter of semantics, but the definition of “bigot” provided by Chris McCoy says nothing about motive.

It is interesting that Judaism has been raised here. The UK Supreme Court recently ruled that the admission criteria of an Orthodox Jewush school were contrary to race discrimination laws. All the judges acknowledged that there was no malice in the school, and that the only reason the appellant was not allowed into the school was because he did not meet the religious criteria for being recognised as an Orthodox Jew. However, since those criteria were essentially a test of ethnic origins, they fell foul of the law. The fact that the school was religiously motivated was irrelevant.

As a side note, I personally suspect that, in any event, a lot of people who claim their homonegativity is principled actually do hate gay people.

Burr

There is a principle behind opposition to homosexuality, and that only principle is “I don’t like people different than me, no matter if they don’t hurt anyone else.” So bigotry IS the principle in play and the only consistent thread through all the lame excuses crafted up around it. The fact that someone eagerly laps up those excuses and claims them to be the real reasons for their bigotry does not make it an emotionally detached and rational principle.

Richard Rush

I generally view the common use of phrases such as “principled opposition” and/or “sincerely held beliefs” as simply a ploy to re-characterize bigotry as something respectable. No one wants themselves or their positions to be tagged with the “B” word. If a position’s reasoning really has validity, why would there be a need for its proponents to keep repeating that it is principled and/or the beliefs are sincerely held? Isn’t it the rhetorical equivalent of using breath mints?

Jarred

Timothy,

I think one issue that I have with your argument is that you’ve defined “opposition” so vaguely as to be practically meaningless. By your definition, you could say that by expressing my belief that peanut butter cup is the best flavor of ice cream and that it would be good if everyone ate it all the time, I’m opposed to rocky road and all the other various flavors of ice cream.

And that leads me to the one thing I notice about your examples. A person can go beyond merely opposing teens having sex or even premarital sex. A person can offer healthy, positive reasons why a teenager might find it good to wait for their first sexual experience. A person can offer healthy, positive reasons why even an adult might want to choose to wait to be in a stable and committed relationship before having sex. Granted, other teens and adults may not find those reasons compelling and may choose not to go. And a person who promotes the alternatives may be perfectly willing to allow them to make those choices. But the, realistically how “opposed” can you say that person is? Saying an alternative is better doesn’t strike me as being particularly opposed to the original choice in any meaningful sense of the word.

I don’t see many alternatives to homosexuality being offered by its “opposition.” And often, no healthy, positive reasons for choosing those alternatives are offered. No, I don’t count “to keep God from being mad at you” or even “to make God happy” as healthy or positive reasons. Similarly, I don’t consider conflating homosexuality with promiscuity, drug addiction, or other issues as if they are all inseparably mixed as “principled.” You can’t be a “principled opposer” while throwing out other principles, like honesty and integrity. Individual principles don’t live in a vacuum.

And then there’s just the annoying fact that most people who are crying about how gay people don’t make a distinction between “principled opposition” and “anti-gay bigotry” are kidding themselves if they think they’re really just in the “principled opposition” camp. There are a few people I’ve had the pleasure of talking to who I might consider “principled opposers” only, and somehow, they don’t seem to feel as though they’re being automatically thrust into the “anti-gay bigotry” compartment. Or if they do feel they are being so labelled, they are extremely sensitive to the reasons why, are concerned about them, and are actively looking for ways to do something about it.

Timothy Kincaid

Jason D,

I agree that most arguments against homosexuality are not principled or applied consistently.

grantdale,

I also agree that arbitrary and capricious are perfect descriptors for the way many highly religious people deal with homosexuals/ity.

jarred,

I don’t think we disagree. My point was that we too often throw all “opposition” – be it vehement and directed at society or mild and directed inward – into one pot and call it “bigotry”.

I’m glad that the people you know who you consider principled opposers are not offended. But even so, I think it hurts us to see them that way. We would be more honest and more considerate (and more successful) if we did not label these people as bigots.

Priya Lynn

Timothy said “My point was that we too often throw all â€œoppositionâ€ â€“ be it vehement and directed at society or mild and directed inward â€“ into one pot and call it â€œbigotryâ€.”.

It is all in the same bigotry pot just as a child who steals a chocolate bar and Bernie Madoff are in the pot called thieves. I’m not going to deny reality to let someone avoid taking responsibility for their actions.

No one’s saying all bigots are hateful to the same degree, but they most certainly are in the same category.

Andrew

OMG this thread is long. And not formatted optimally for reading !!

We have a problem with words:

“homophobe” implies fear. Apply that to someone who’s not scared and it’s laughable, and you’re discredited.

“hater”, “bigot” are big words. Someone’s bias may be smaller than that. There’s a difference between someone who kills gays and someone who votes against them. Call that voter a “bigot” (big word) when other don’t see it that way, you’ve lost your audience. They’re prejudiced, small-minded, and self-satisfied, but HOW CAN WE COMMUNICATE THAT **succinctly**?

Bigot is short and to the point, but it can miss the mark. Self-satisfied ego-centric small-minded heterosexist bastard doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.

Andrew

As for hate crimes, marriage, etc:

Gay & gay-friendly doesn’t come with a membership card we can tear corners from.

Just because it’s an HRC initiative doesn’t mean we all have to get on board… kinda…

You can oppose state-sanction rewards for marriages — all marriages. You can be philosophically opposed to all hate crimes laws.

Where you get into trouble is when you support those laws for some, but not for others. That’s actually the definition of discrimination.

Chris McCoy

I think people are confusing “principled” with “morally right.”

Opposition to anything on the basis of any principle, is, by definition, bigotry.

If you have “principled opposition” to dancing, that is bigotry. If you have “principled opposition” to republicans, that too, is bigotry. If you have “principled opposition” to macadamia nuts, that too, is bigotry.

I also think people are creating unnecessary conflict when they equate the totality of a person with a single idea. I don’t like brussel sprouts – but I am not wholly defined by that singular facet of my life, and my dislike of said vegetable does not cause me to make irrational decisions in other areas.

I think we do a dis-service when we label people as bigots. Label the IDEA bigotry, not the PERSON.

We’ve all been wrong before. Then we were corrected, and now we are no longer wrong in that area. Being wrong does not make someone a bad person.

Point out the flaws in people’s logic. Call them on their bigotry. Resorting to personal attacks for holding a wrong idea only hardens their resolve to hold onto the wrong idea. Insulting people doesn’t endear them to changing their mind.

But at the same time, allowing people to hold onto their wrong-headed ideas in the name of some principle is equally wrong-headed.

For centuries people believed that the world was flat. Now-a-days it is laughable to suggest otherwise. If someone came along and said “I object on principle to the teaching of ‘Round-Earth Theory’ in schools” we would be foolish to allow this person to espouse this belief un-challenged.

It is the same with anti-gay bigotry. Are they wrong? Yes. Should we point out that they are wrong every time they speak against us? Yes. Is the idea bigotted? Yes. Are they “Bigots”? On this topic, yes. Are they bad people? Mu.

Andrew

Principled opposition to dancing is bigotry? That’s silly. It depends on the principles at play. You have to tease those apart to see if it’s bigoted or not. Maybe you think people should go easier on their knees. Maybe you have sympathy for those who can’t dance, and don’t want to subject them to exclusion. Maybe you’re outraged that the deaf should be asked to fake it.

The point is, priciples are just a set of rules. Explain those rules – that’s where you’ll find the internal logic, intentions, and underpinning philosophies at work — those are what matters.

The definition Chris gives us is a little weird to me.

Priya Lynn

Chris, I’m not buying that who we are as people is somehow completely distinct from our actions and attitudes. If you have bad attitudes and bad actions then you are by definition to at least a degree a bad person.

Andrew

Priya, perhaps, but there’s a difference between how you handle someone who’s thought long and hard about something and decided they hate you, and someone who’s never questioned the crap someone filled their heads with since they were a child.

Black and white is easy, but it’s not reality, and it suggests courses of action that will not be succesful.

Priya Lynn

I’m not disagreeing with you on that one Andrew.

Chris McCoy

Priya Lynn said:

Chris, Iâ€™m not buying that who we are as people is somehow completely distinct from our actions and attitudes. If you have bad attitudes and bad actions then you are by definition to at least a degree a bad person.

If I disagree with you, does that make me a Bad Person?

Chris McCoy

Andrew said:

Principled opposition to dancing is bigotry? Thatâ€™s silly. It depends on the principles at play. You have to tease those apart to see if itâ€™s bigoted or not. Maybe you think people should go easier on their knees. Maybe you have sympathy for those who canâ€™t dance, and donâ€™t want to subject them to exclusion. Maybe youâ€™re outraged that the deaf should be asked to fake it.

Many people don’t like the truth, but the fact remains that Bigotry, by definition, means “complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.”

If you believe any form of dancing is intolerable, then your idea of dancing is bigoted, whatever the principle behind that belief.

The truth is that most people are not aware that some of their ideas are, in fact, bigotry.

The point is, priciples are just a set of rules. Explain those rules â€“ thatâ€™s where youâ€™ll find the internal logic, intentions, and underpinning philosophies at work â€” those are what matters.

Believing in Principle alone does not make you right. The KKK believes their opposition to African-American equality is based on Sound Principle. They would be wrong.

Anti-Semites believe their oppoistion to Jews is based on Sound Principle. They would also be wrong.

Jason D

At a certain point this whole conversation starts to feel like pointless navel-gazing.

I get the impression that we go beyond critique into the land of “let’s find something about ourselves to feel guilty about”.

Gee, are we not being a perfect 10 out of 10 on the Complete and Total Rightness Scale in regards to people who think we’re sick, disgusting, disordered, sinful, criminals that want to deny our rights? Sorry, I’m just out of sympathy at that point.

It almost seems like this is an argument against offending potential allies.

But is someone with a well thought out, “principled opposition” to homosexuality in that moveable middle? It seems those with shakey, badly formed arguments are an easier sell as opposed to those with well-thought out and consistent principles.

Let’s say, for example, someone who is against all forms of non-procreative sex. Masturbation, condoms, rhythm method, homosexuality, —a big “NO” to anything that doesn’t have the express purpose of intentionally making babies. INCLUDING sex between married heterosexuals for fun, pleasure, bonding. In other words sex, of any kind, is only for making babies, period. Is this someone who’s likely to change their principles for us? Unlikely. So what is the point in making the distinction in how we respond to someone like this?

Let’s not lump in the Well Thought Out Bigotry with the Fly by Night Bigotry! The result of both mindsets is the same, right?

Is there really much of a distinction if effect between those with unprincipled bigotry and those with principled bigotry?

I don’t get it? Do they get a cookie for consistency? Should we send out letters “Dear Sir, thanks for discriminating against me in the right way. Bravo!”

I fail to see how this distinction is anything other than a nifty waste of time. Where’s the practical application?

Priya Lynn

Chris said “If I disagree with you, does that make me a Bad Person?”.

I don’t think you’re particularly hurting anyone (with the possible exception of yourself) by believing people’s actions and attitudes are divorced from who they are as people so no, I don’t think that makes you a bad person. A fool perhaps, but not a bad person.

Jason D

I don’t think Priya was implying that disagreeing with her makes you a bad person. I don’t think Priya was setting herself up as God today.

Andrew

Chris, I think we agree on the points about principle. Principles aren’t inherently right or wrong because they’re principles — it matter what those principles are.

You’ve been very clever. You’ve played the A = B = C game, so that now “principled opposition” — which is a very vague term — is now defined as “complete intolerance”. That then allows you to slam the “bigot” label on to it. Never mind that “bigot”, in current common parlance, is a loaded term that specifies discrimination on the basis of identity. Or should we revert to calling poor housekeepers “sluts” (which is the definition of the word slut) — just to win arguments?

That’s a bit of a bait and switch.

In the instance of the anti-gay activists who are using fuzzy words like “principled opposition” to, in this case, soften their intentions and make them more palatable to an undecided or uninterested majority, I tend to agree with you — principled opposition is being used as subterfuge.

But “principled opposition” to things like dancing will depend on that conversation — which isn’t taking place in our public sphere right now.

When it does, we can dissect the principles at issue, and also whether or those in opposition wish to stop everyone from dancing, or just refrain from dancing themselves. After all, you wouldn’t call a straight person a “bigot” for not having gay sex, right?

I think I stand by my “silly” comment. It’s a silly non-existent argument with intangible principles upon which anyone can project whatever they want — and apparently have.

Andrew

Jason, it matters because of message.

When you call someone a bigot, you ask everyone else to agree with you or disagree with you. If they disagree with you, then they may well disagree with the rest of your presentation. You lose credibility because you sound unreasonable.

Some of those expressing “principled opposition” to gays know this. That’s why they’ve gussied up their anti-gay activism with $1.25 worth of SAT words that sound smart, thoughtful, and reasonable.

But be very careful. Overuse of big ammunition like “bigot” cheapens the word. Most people think they know a bigot when they see one. They also know an angry marginalized person with an axe to grind. Overuse the term, and your opponent plays victim and you look like the bad guy.

We get 30 seconds worth of sound clips to make our case most times. Those need to be used to the right effect.

And yes, it does matter what the great hetero majority thinks. This isn’t their fight, so most of them don’t spend much time considering it — that’s normal. But they vote. And most times they vote based on those 30-second soundbites. We need to win that war by making sure we don’t alienate them with angry hyperbole, while unmasking the b-s that underlies this so-called “principled opposition” to gays.

Priya Lynn

Andrew said “Or should we revert to calling poor housekeepers â€œslutsâ€ (which is the definition of the word slut) â€” just to win arguments?”.

Wow, what planet are you from?

Andrew, few of us would deny that a person who opposes equality for blacks is a bigot. Its no different with those who’d deny equality to gays. In the 30 second soundbite world you’re talking about you’ll get nowhere trying to softpedal your message – other than indirectly supporting the oppositions idea that they have “principles” supporting their side.

Chris McCoy

Andrew said:

Youâ€™ve been very clever. Youâ€™ve played the A = B = C game, so that now â€œprincipled oppositionâ€ â€” which is a very vague term â€” is now defined as â€œcomplete intoleranceâ€. That then allows you to slam the â€œbigotâ€ label on to it. Never mind that â€œbigotâ€, in current common parlance, is a loaded term that specifies discrimination on the basis of identity. Or should we revert to calling poor housekeepers â€œslutsâ€ (which is the definition of the word slut) â€” just to win arguments?

When did the meaning of the word principle become vague? To my mind, calling “principled opposition” vague is the epitome of oxymoron.

We live in a society where people are afraid to point out when other people are wrong. This fosters people who can’t handle criticism.

I object to that attitude. It makes me a bigot in that regard. I apologize in advance for your abhorrence.

Chris McCoy

Priya Lynn said:

I donâ€™t think youâ€™re particularly hurting anyone (with the possible exception of yourself) by believing peopleâ€™s actions and attitudes are divorced from who they are as people so no, I donâ€™t think that makes you a bad person. A fool perhaps, but not a bad person.

I did not say people are divorced from their action/ideas.

I said people are more than any 1 single action/idea.

Andrew

Wow. So we can add “abhor” to the list of words you don’t use properly, Chris (or were you being funny?). I was bemused. Now I’m irked. Abhor would somehow suggest that I care more than I do.

I didn’t say “principle” was vague, I said “principled opposition” is vague. But you get another 5 points for misrepresentation. “Principled opposition” is, in this incarnation, a phrase designed to obfuscate vicious intolerance wedded to a political agenda using deceptive rhetoric. It’s a term designed to connote thoughfulness, consideration, reason, and especially moral rectitude. It’s a very clever construction when you break it down. Someone paid a think tank good money for that one.

You know perfectly well that modern usage of “bigot” do not support your terminology. Again, you cheapen the word (as it’s used in modern parlance) and make it harder to communicate with folks who matter. There’s a big difference between calling someone, for example, a “grammar nazi” — versus calling someone out for espousing a racist autocratic nationalistic idealogy.

While you’re playing semantic games, the rest of us will be out winning hearts and minds. Have fun.

Andrew

And yes that would be “does” not “do”… good thing there aren’t so many grammar Nazis out there…

Jason D

“And yes, it does matter what the great hetero majority thinks. This isnâ€™t their fight, so most of them donâ€™t spend much time considering it â€” thatâ€™s normal. But they vote. And most times they vote based on those 30-second soundbites. We need to win that war by making sure we donâ€™t alienate them with angry hyperbole, while unmasking the b-s that underlies this so-called â€œprincipled oppositionâ€ to gays.”

That’s an interesting contradiction.

We only have 30-seconds to make our case so we should make it as wordy and complicated as possible, rather than distilling it to it’s basics.

This thread has probably taken a couple hours up with comments, and nowhere in here do I see an explanation that’s clear enough to be a winning argument to make with 30-seconds.

If anything, bigot is the better use of that 30-seconds.

Congratulations, you’ve bought into the victim mentality of “waaah, they called me a bigot, they’re being hateful”

Yes, please, tell us what else we can do to not hurt the feelings of those trying to shove us back in the closet.

Heaven forbid we accurately portray bigotry as bigotry because that might actually make bigots upset.

Congratulations, you’ve allowed them to turn “bigot” into the equivalent of “faggot”.

You don’t get it, Andrew, when you play by their random, made up rules — THEY WIN!

R Holmes

I get Andrew’s point about using the word bigot, however technically accurate it may be. It is a term that is emotionally loaded beyond its technical meaning.

If using the word bigot will detract from your aims, when less emotive words will convey your message equally well, then why not use those other words?

The problem here, of course, is that not everyone is going to be reached in the same way. I remember having this discussion on another LGBT forum. Should you go with the old adage that you catch more flies with honey, or should you be blunt (sometimes to the point of rudeness)?

Some of those who had been won over as allies said that bluntness put their backs up and that it was gentle, compassionate persuiasion that worked for them. Others said they needed the shock of being confronted with the unvarnished truth about their views. So, horses for courses and all that.

With all that said, the heading of this thread is not about tactics for winning allies, it’s about whether there is a difference between anti-gay bigotry and principled opposition to homosexuality. My answer to that remains the same: no – the latter is merely a sub-set of the former.

Chris McCoy

Andrew said:

â€œPrincipled oppositionâ€ is, in this incarnation, a phrase designed to obfuscate vicious intolerance wedded to a political agenda using deceptive rhetoric. Itâ€™s a term designed to connote thoughfulness, consideration, reason, and especially moral rectitude. Itâ€™s a very clever construction when you break it down. Someone paid a think tank good money for that one.

I agree, people are hiding behind 25c words that sound important untill you shine the light of meaning on them.

You know perfectly well that modern usage of â€œbigotâ€ do not support your terminology.

I’m sorry you are so offended by the actual definition of the word, as opposed to what you want it to mean.

Again, you cheapen the word (as itâ€™s used in modern parlance) and make it harder to communicate with folks who matter.

Because only heterosexuals matter….

Thereâ€™s a big difference between calling someone, for example, a â€œgrammar naziâ€ â€” versus calling someone out for espousing a racist autocratic nationalistic idealogy.

You didn’t understand my original post, so let me re-state it – Call out people for bigoted IDEAS, don’t call PEOPLE bigots.

While youâ€™re playing semantic games, the rest of us will be out winning hearts and minds. Have fun.

The Original Post asked the question, “Is ‘Principled Opposition to Homosexuality’ Different from Bigotry?” I attempted to show that, by the definition of the words themselves, they are in fact the same thing.

I then pointed out that you don’t win hearts and minds by labeling people as bigots – it usually puts them on the defensive – and consequently more likely to hold on to their idea and less likely to consider alternatives.

But if you point out that their IDEA is actually a form of bigotry, and give the reasons why, most (but not all) people are more inclined to listen to you.

Priya Lynn

Chris said “I did not say people are divorced from their action/ideas.
I said people are more than any 1 single action/idea.”.

No, you did say people are divorced from their actions and attitudes. On another thread you said Hitler wasn’t a bad person, his actions were and that you weren’t a better person than him. When you make statements like that you’ve completely divorced who people are people from their attitudes and actions.

Chris McCoy

Priya Lynn said:

No, you did say people are divorced from their actions and attitudes. On another thread you said Hitler wasnâ€™t a bad person, his actions were and that you werenâ€™t a better person than him. When you make statements like that youâ€™ve completely divorced who people are people from their attitudes and actions.

No, you said that I said that. I did not say that.

I said people do bad things. That does not mean that someone who does something bad is suddenly incapable of doing good things, and that they are forever doomed to do nothing but bad.

My understanding of your argument is – Hitler did Bad Things – therefore Hitler is a Bad Person – therefore everything Hitler did is Bad.

This is faulty logic.

As to your “am I better than Hitler” – I refuse to fall into the trap of appeal to emotion. I refuse to judge people’s worth – that path only leads to discrimination, racism, elitism, sexism, etc.

For me, the practice of compassion is being able to see humanity in places others refuse to look.

I will say again, stop attacking the person, start attacking the idea.

Priya Lynn

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/11/17/16774

Yes, you did say who we are as people is divorced from our actions and beliefs.

You said “It is my sincere hope that one day we get over the idea that one person can be intrinsically â€œbetterâ€ than another…Our differences make us different, they do not make one person better than any other.”

I then asked “So, how about it Chris, is it your â€œsincere hopeâ€ that your friends and family can one day â€œget over the ideaâ€ that you are â€œintrinsicallyâ€ better than Hitler? For the record I think its a virtual certainty that Chris is a much better person than Hitler was. I just want to see if heâ€™s going to agree with me, or stick with his original claim that a personâ€™s actions donâ€™t make them any better or worse than anyone else, just â€œdifferentâ€.”

You responded “Were Hitlerâ€™s actions bad? Yes.
Am I a better person than Hitler? Mu.[no]…Having compassion means seeing that there are no â€œbad peopleâ€ or â€œgood people.â€ There are only â€œpeople.â€”

When you say “there are no bad people or good people, only people” you are saying who we are as people is divorced from our actions and beliefs – case closed.

Priya Lynn

Chris said “My understanding of your argument is â€“ Hitler did Bad Things â€“ therefore Hitler is a Bad Person â€“ therefore everything Hitler did is Bad.”.

I never said that. Hitler was a bad person and that’s why he did bad things. I most certainly never said anything of the sort that everything he did was bad. He may have loved his mother, petted kittens, and fed the homeless for all I know.

Jason D

“I will say again, stop attacking the person, start attacking the idea.”

Chris, the person is responsible for the idea. Ideas don’t spawn themselves. They come from people.

We are all responsible for the things we put out into the world, be they actions, messages, or indifference to both.

This isn’t some Debate Club intellectual and or philosophical disagreement. This is real life, where actions have consequences and people’s freedom are on the line.

“As to your â€œam I better than Hitlerâ€ â€“ I refuse to fall into the trap of appeal to emotion. I refuse to judge peopleâ€™s worth â€“ that path only leads to discrimination, racism, elitism, sexism, etc.

For me, the practice of compassion is being able to see humanity in places others refuse to look.”

Compassion is an appeal to emotion.

You are a curious bundle of contradictions.

Timothy Kincaid

Let’s not turn this thread into a regurgitation of another thread’s off-topic argument over semantics.

The topic is whether principled opposition to homosexuality differs from bigotry.

Priya Lynn