Opinion: Conflicts at CPAC
At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) gathering, haughty, paunchy Ryan Sorba, chairman of the California chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom, strode to the microphone and shouted, “I would like to condemn CPAC for bringing GoPride to this event.”
Immediately an inarticulate howl arose from the crowd.
Perhaps his coming diatribe was influenced by their low standards of communication. Sorba did not express himself much more eloquently than the skinny kid a few rows back who was giving him the ever–so–blood–chilling thumbs–down gesture of disapproval, but he did manage to verbally outmaneuver his foes.
Observe:
“Civil rights are grounded in natural rights,” Sorba smugly asserted at CPAC.
“Boooo!” argued the crowd.
“Natural rights are grounded in human nature,” Sorba continued.
“Ahhhh! Boooo!” the crowd retorted.
“Human nature is a rational relationship; the intelligible end of the reproductive act is reproduction,” Sorba finished, gripping the podium, alight with fury. “Do you understand that?”
Scattered clapping punctured the crowd’s rebuke: “Boooo! Arrrgh! Boooo!”
The backlash that began in the seats of CPAC has spread into the political arena.
Commentators across the spectrum have denounced Sorba’s challenge, calling him “homophobic.”
Sorba could be called foolhardy, belligerent and arrogant.
None of these terms, however, belie any sense of fear, rational or irrational.
Sorba showed no fear. He addressed a room packed full of hostile people, criticizing the very organization that permitted him to speak, and simultaneously shredded two new liberal taboos: the mocking of women and homosexuals.
“The lesbians at Smith College protest better than you do!” he sneered, eliciting screams of fury.
That was pretty rude, I thought as I watched the C–SPAN coverage.
It was also incredibly brave.
Brave, because the homosexual movement, a liberal sub–faction, proliferates like melanoma.
TV shows, shelves of books at Barnes and Noble and innumerable Internet forums are dedicated to its goals: Numb the opposition with repetition while resigning the neutral to its new, elevated status. It inundates popular culture with its propaganda, living by the Orwellian mantra: Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.
Ryan Sorba, the sudden, lone, vocal, delightful opposition, startled many spectators out of a reverie.
He’s also attracted a lynch mob. Bloggers are chasing after him, bellowing, “What people do in their bedrooms is no one’s business!” and “ Why did CPAC even let him talk?” and, of course, “Boooo!”
Some have marshaled intelligent, detailed cases against Sorba’s denunciation of CPAC, but they have tossed them aside to blend into the wailing crowd. Which crowd has time for deliberation? Which crowd gives three cheers for moderation? Not one hell–bent on humiliating and scourging the resistance.
Had Sorba the time and presence of mind to formulate a better response than “Bring it!” to the crowd’s jeers, he might have quoted Mark Twain: “The idea of YOU lynching anybody! It’s amusing. The idea of you thinking you had pluck enough to lynch a MAN! Why, a MAN’S safe in the hands of ten thousand of your kind –– as long as it’s daytime and you’re not behind him.”
Those self–appointed pharisaical incarnations of tolerance would do well to pause before hanging him. A faction that can’t stomach dissent, juvenile or otherwise, makes a mockery of itself.
The CPAC brouhaha proves that the homosexual movement isn’t founded on honest arguments. The only principle that unites its members is organized touchiness.
Katie McHugh is a member of the class of 2013. She can be reached at [email protected]
wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
I met the blogger you so easily traduce. He’s the really brave one- openly gay in a nation that systematically discriminates against him and his lover.
Yikes.
“Brave, because the homosexual movement, a liberal sub–faction, proliferates like melanoma.” ?
Homosexuality as disease?
Thank you, Rebecca, for proving my point! I just noticed these comments, so forgive the delay. 🙂
This article is absolutely incredible in its intolerance and insensitivity.
I will ignore the analogy comparing homosexuality to a deadly cancer, and I will instead comment on your ending statement:
“The CPAC brouhaha proves that the homosexual movement isn’t founded on honest arguments. The only principle that unites its members is organized touchiness.”
Assuming that you believe in the “truth” that homosexuality somehow instills a terrible evil in the world, which the righteous like yourself aim to correct, your argument still fails. “Organized touchiness”? Do you expect a person to simply accept hateful prejudice? Many have formed arguments in the forms of peaceful protests, themed artwork, and essays, and it’s really no fault of theirs that you base your judgment of the eloquence of the LGBT community and its supporters on a reasonably emotional reaction to an intolerant politician. I suppose that you feel it would have been better for them to calmly argue against a shouting man with uncompromising beliefs. Perhaps. But it is unreasonable to expect a large crowd of any common belief to function as a body of separate, logical minds. Had the roles been reversed, Ryan Sorba most likely would have been one of many like-minded individuals yelling inarticulate cries against a person interrupting the meeting to argue for a greater acceptance of gay men and women.
And to call Sorba brave? His action itself could, perhaps, be brave in the sense that he faced a large opposition. But certain actions that require personal bravery are still not admirable in the least. Suicide bombers may be brave in their willingness to sacrifice their lives, but they are cowards in their use of violence. Sorba dismissed his personal sense of acceptance and perhaps even safety, but he did it for ignoble reasons. Sorba is a coward.
While I may not have been as thoroughly articulate in my response as your carefully crafted editorial, I believe that you are wrong. I hope that you reconsider your viewpoints soon, because people like you are more damaging to the intellectual welfare of America than any gay man or lesbian woman ever could be.
Hi, Jane! Thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts. This whole comments section is fantastic.
It’s a funny thing, calling an argument, especially an editorial, “intolerant.” I have strong opinions. You have strong opinions. We’re going to be “intolerant” towards one another’s statements. That’s a badly misused word, though. To use a much better phrase, we’re going to be predisposed towards disagreeing with those who hold opposite beliefs. Or disinclined to accept their line of reasoning. This all leads back to presuppositions and world views, though, which is too weighty a topic to tackle in one little comment, soooo…
Everyone holds some sort of prejudice against certain behaviors, and that’s not always a bad thing. Some people look down on drug abusers and smokers because their addictive habits seriously threaten their health and that of those around them. It’s the same deal with homosexuals, but it’s definitely not limited to them. Promiscuous straight people also harm the public health by spreading disease. I haven’t seen a “Promiscuous Straight Pride” parade, though…like, ever. I don’t mind the homosexual foray into politics; they just add to the show. What I do mind is them taking themselves too seriously.
I’m tired of one-word catchphrases, too. All of this talk of “hate” and “intolerance” annoys me. The political words we all use nowadays are intentionally unclear, so you can just stamp someone with that label and move on. All of the “phobia” words are sheer nonsense, though. Like the laughable “homophobia.” “Fear of the same?” Huh? You’ve got to be kidding me.
Tolerance is the virtue of a man without principles, as the wonderful G. K. Chesterton once noted. Another good one: The point of having an open mind is to close it on something. Your last sentence is a non-sequitur on top of a non-sequitur, too. The people who wander around with their mouths hanging open, swallowing everything pop culture and the media tell them, are the ones who endanger the intellectual climate, or at least whatever tatters are left of it. But, hey, without them, we wouldn’t know why massive, centralized democracy is such a bad idea. Mmmm mmm mmm.
Your rhetoric is strong, much stronger than mine. You can latch onto my perhaps poor word choice of ‘intolerant’ to describe your argument and take it in a different direction. We both know that I was not referring to an intolerance to an argument, but to a type of baseless prejudice inherent in your viewpoint. Yes, there are reasonable types of prejudice to have, but yours (against the homosexual population, which is apparent in your willingness to find in Sorba’s fit a sense of “bravery”) has no basis in logic. So yes, you write better than I can and can make your argument sound superior to others’ with simply your word choices, but at the end of the day, you have the wrong idea. And, in my opinion, that’s all that matters.
Since you cowardly speak through the words of Sorba and do not claim or distance yourself from his comments, I will treat them as your own.
You claim that Natural Rights exist, that they are intelligible, and that they have been disclosed to you. You claim that they are grounded in Human Nature, that human nature’s intelligible end is procreation and that homosexuals are therefore not accorded natural rights. Then, rhetorically, you ask me if I understand as if there was no possibility I could not.
However, I must ask for clarification.
I must ask if you are sincerely suggesting that homosexuals are unnatural, because they do not exist to procreate? That, because they subvert nature’s supposed end, they are not conferred natural rights and as a result do not deserve equal rights under law (or legal protection whatsoever)?
If this is what you are claiming, I must also ask, if you are equally committed to stripping the natural rights from heterosexual married couples who subvert nature’s intelligible end by choosing not to have children. Or merely have sex, because they enjoy it. I also, wonder why you do not spend more of your time condemning the sterile sisters of an ant colony for their intelligibly unnatural activities or Catholic priests who unnaturally abstain from sex entirely.
Most importantly, however, I must ask why you have chosen such a provocative, historical quote from [one of] Mark Twain[‘s characters?]. When you quote the following what exactly do you wish to convey?
“The idea of YOU lynching anybody! It’s amusing. The idea of you thinking you had pluck enough to lynch a MAN! Why, a MAN’S safe in the hands of ten thousand of your kind –– as long as it’s daytime and you’re not behind him.”
Do you wish to remind your readership of lingering white belligerence and hegemony? Are you afraid that we have forgetten the threat it poses to those who dissent to or defect from the Racial Contract we all inherited? Do you wish to remind us that if a white conservative deems you unnatural you can be stripped of your natural rights and concomitantly your legal protections?
Or, do you merely wish to imply that the white conservative has a natural right to be belligerent, ignorant and offensive? That the homosexual (read: liberal) movement mustn’t organize and mustn’t forget that their place in the natural order is to remain touchy-feely (read: impotent)?
P.S. Before you write this of as just another “dishonest” dismissal from the so-called homosexual movement please remove the plank from your eye and recognize the fact that you referred to someone as heroic when he not only called into question a diverse group of people’s moral standing, but questioned whether they were even worthy of moral consideration. And yet, those individuals who are reduced to subhuman, nay sub-natural status, are merely being “touchy” when they respond in outrage?
Also, people don’t say ‘homosexualphobic’ because it is awkward to say. Shortening of words is a common practice, especially with frequently used words. I don’t know what you wish to accomplish by pretending you don’t know what homophobia means, but to me you don’t come off as knowledgeable or clever. Instead, you sound pretentious. Don’t you realize that the meaning of a word is not found in its roots, but in the context of its use?
Jane,
Your word choice was fine, and your argument sound. She does not write better than you do, nor does her argument sound superior. Childish rhetorical games are not convincing, and are not nearly as worthwhile as honest, respectful discussion.
Erin
Hey, Karl, my man, nice complex question. They taught us that propaganda technique in sixth grade. Way ahead of you. I guess you’re asking all those questions not because you’re interested in answers, but because you just like puffing out your chest. It’s all right. I’m not being very threatening here, so calm down. I know you’re smart. But thanks for bringing up some valid points about marriage and procreation.
The problem with the whole “sexual revolution” is this: It’s a movement of death. It loathes children and glorifies only one tiny part of marriage, the act of procreation, sans the actual conception part. The whole homosexual movement is just the mud at the bottom of the slippery slope. Birth prevention is what started this whole mess.
Bear with me here. I’m saying some pretty crazy stuff, I know. I’m not going to call The Pill “birth control,” because, as G. K. Chesterton quipped, it has nothing to do with birth or control. Introducing the birth prevention pill to marriage—this started back with the Catholic Church relented in the face of Planned Parenthood’s (racist and eugenicist) campaign—and permitted the use of the pill for married couples only who had more children than they could afford. The thing is, sex is only supposed to be for creating children. It’s not supposed to be for having fun with whenever you feel like it.
Why does the sexual revolution hate children? Because they are an inconvenient consequence; they get in the way of “adults just having some consensual fun.” Imagine having the power to prevent someone from ever existing. Yeah. That’s what birth prevention is. Abortion, the physical dismemberment of the child in the womb, is just another step down. Peter Singer’s position—killing kids up to two years old if their parents wish—is another step. Be careful what you wish for, huh?
With married couples throwing away old morals and just having sex to have sex, they made marriage vulnerable to all sorts of perversions. Adultery, fornication, sodomy, what have you are all on equal levels now, because married couples gave up their exclusive right to producing children.
This issue is a little too complex to tackle in one comment, so if you’re interested, here’s someone who’s much more knowledgeable and eloquent than I am: http://www.sobran.com/issuetexts/2005-01.htm
Joe Sobran. Love him.
Anyway…I don’t remember ever signing a (R)acial (C)ontract. (Caps? Really? Come on, man.) I used that quote because the homosexuals’ hatred of normalcy is irrational. They’re not subhuman. They’re just not more equal than the rest of us.
“Homophobic” is a stupid word for a couple of reasons: One, its definition is nonsense. It can mean irrational fear OR disapproval of homosexuality. Disapproval? My disapproval is my conclusion, not my predilection. I used to be all for gays getting “married” and adopting children. Then I thought about it, did a lot of reading, and decided that it’s a terrible idea, and that the activists are exploiting their adherents. Two, you insist everyone call homosexuals “gays” and then slam people with “homophobia.” If you’re going to call me a “homophobe,” then I should be able to call you a “homo.” Both terms are derogatory. Let’s level the playing field if we’re going to get all crazy up in here.
Ahh, yes, the old technique of “I’ll throw a Biblical phrase at her to reveal her hypocrisy! HAH!” Yeah, no. Maybe you should read the New Testament sometime. You might find a lot of applicable passages there. I don’t want to start that kind of competition because I don’t want to embarrass you, so go back to what you’re best at: contorting your argument fit your arbitrary moral standards. Unless you’re obeying a higher Law than your own feelings, you don’t really have much to back you up.
The meaning of words isn’t found in its roots at all, but only in the modern context of its use? Spoken like a true liberal. History is bunk; the only thing that matters is my feelings. Riiiight. I guess Latin and Greek forgot that they give meaning to most of the words in our vocabulary. Come on. That was a weak point.
And, whoa, what’s with you people hiding your full names? I wrote this article, put my full name it, and let you people reply. So man up before you call me cowardly, y’all. 😉
For the record, I’m not Liberal. I quoted a bible passage, because I’m Christian, not because I wanted to make you seem hypocritical.
I was not asking rhetorical questions. I wanted answers. Particularly about why you chose to invoke lynching in such a provocative and threatening manner. Its subject matter has nothing to do with irrationality. Unless, it’s their irrational fear of normalcy that makes the white man safe from them as long as its daylight and their not behind him.
I hope the implicit threat in that quote was unintentional, like I hope the unfortunate choice of “man up” was in your latest response.
Please clarify what normal is, how it is disclosed and who defines it. You just cannot take as a given axiom that your standards of morality are the natural standards without any evidence. I’ll look at Sobran’s piece once I am finished with my comp if you take a look at the book Adapting Minds by David Buller. I think your ideas about the intelligible end of nature are significantly dated. He’s a philosopher of science and his constructive critique of evolutionary psychology may be informative.
About words: Where did the meaning of latin and greek words come from? Did god hand them down the verbal utterance “conscience” and tell them it means “with-knowledge”? Furthermore, does knowing the roots of conscience help us to understand what someone means when they use the expression “knocked unconscious”?
The roots are not unimportant, but words evolve based on their use like a river slowly cuts through rock and gradually alters course. The rivers course is influenced by the path it used to take, but over enough time it charts a course distinct from its origin.
Etymology, then, is not debunk or irrelevant. However, by looking at etymology you can’t know what people currently mean by the words they choose. Furthermore, it should not be used as an excuse for not trying to understand people, which is what it seemed you were doing when you replied to Jane.
About the virtue of having an open mind: The idea is that openness to new experiences, evidence is educative. Not being over confident in your present beliefs allows you to revise the beliefs you have about the world more efficiently. Science, for example, is useless if one is “closed minded” as you have described.
About the bible: I am aware of passages that explicitly condemn homosexuality in both the old and new testament. However, the bible is full of internal contradictions (as one would expect from a nation struggling to discern the call of God). The fear I have, assuming from your comments that you are Christian, is that you are not picking up your responsibility to do the same. Would you disagree that a dominant theme in the new testament is the danger of being over confident that one has discerned god’s law?
Lastly: I don’t appreciate you assuming that my moral standards are arbitrary. What grounds do you have to make that claim? I think we disagree on the methods we take to discerning said higher purpose. You seem over confident in the ability of the past to discern that higher purpose accurately and that their conclusions are timeless and not context dependent.
Also, can you elaborate on what you mean by “more equal?”
You may call yourself a Christian, Karl, but your presuppositions are of the world. The Bible isn’t some idle piece of literature; it’s the inerrant word of God. Your comments are full of logical fallacies and you have nothing interesting or thought-provoking to say. I’m wasting time talking to you. You’re one of those “nits,” a combo of a nit-picker and a nitwit. I like to give one response to each person who makes a thoughtful comment, and you used up your only chance to make a point. Be more careful next time.
And you use all of these big words, but you’ve never read Animal Farm? Geez. But hey, there’s a first time for everything. Get busy. You’re dismissed. 🙂
This was unbelievably disrespectful and ironic. Am I really being accused of committing unspecified logical fallacies by someone whose entire world view hinges on an appeal to an authority?
I must echo Becky… wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
We do not censor at The Campus, but we do have a strict set of rules governing how our writers respond to criticism about their work. These rules do not include insulting readers who disagree with articles or opinions. We expect writers to choose to either maturely and factually respond to critiques and alternative viewpoints or to not comment at all. The discussion threads on the website were made to promote constructive discussion and debate.
Extremely interesting and informative article! As a homosexual myself, I was glad to finally learn my much sought after place in the world. Ms. McHugh eloquently enlightened me that due to my lack of not only civil rights, but natural rights I should clearly stop my cancerous recruitment of everyone to my homosexual agenda and instead bury myself in the dirt with the satisfaction of knowing that I am inherently ‘less equal’ than everyone else. After all, any effort to fight back against this bigotry would clearly be only a further display of my ‘touchiness’. I sincerely hope that after I post this response, Ms. McHugh can further enlighten me to my rhetorical and logical fallacies, as that would certainly not be an attempt to circumvent the issue at hand. I applaud Ms. McHugh for her laudable efforts in reminding a subset of the population that instead of caring about our equality, we should stop taking ourselves too seriously and crawl back into the pit from whence we came. I understand now that our ‘sexual revolution’ (or movement of death, to some) compromises the efforts of upstanding citizens like Ms. McHugh to make sure everyone who was ever ‘meant to exist’ gets that chance. I will surely keep this in mind during my search for a partner and a satisfying life. God forbid my mere existence (or wait, was it choice?) should tarnish the good name of respectful conservatives.
Ah, sarcasm. Fitting that it is the lowest form of humor.
Ms. McHugh,
While I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, as protected by the First Amendment, there have been numerous Supreme Court cases since the Bill of Rights was drafted that state that not all forms of speech are protected. For instance, slander and libel are not protected. Further, hate speech is not protected either. I realize you hate catch phrases, however, I feel I do not need to elaborate any further than “hate speech.”
If you had written an article expressing why you think marriage equality is wrong, than I would be upset, but I would not be outraged. As an individual who identifies as queer I am used to people thinking I am subhuman. To call the LGBT community a cancer, though, is taking it to another level.
Jesus said to love the sinner, and hate the sin. I agree with Gandhi, who said that “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, they are nothing like your Christ.” You are nothing like Christ. Jesus Christ was a loving person who treated everyone equally, and as a Christian you should be striving to love people from all walks of life, not just those who are straight and white like yourself. You should walk a day in the shoes of minority groups which you seem to think deserve their oppression. I find it extremely ironic that you are a woman. The bible has some pretty specific passages about the place of woman, and that you should stay out of the public sphere, lest you be mistaken as a prostitute. Public spaces includes newspapers. Women were only allowed to publish their works in print and book from in Europe in the late 1700’s, and even then these women were publicly dragged through the dirt and disgraced. In America you have had the right to have a political voice for less than a century. You owe your ability to express yourself in any way you see fit to those “radical liberals” you so detest. If it weren’t for them, you would not be receiving an education right now, you would be married already. Which, I guess, you wouldn’t find anything wrong with, since you seem to think of it so highly.
Further, you seem to think that marriage and procreation are intrinsically intertwined and connected. What of women who marry after their childbearing years are over? This marriage will not end in procreation, are they still able to enjoy the full protection of law? What of marriages between infertile people? What of the people who do not want children at all, but still want to enjoy the 1,138 rights that a couple receives upon the signing of the marriage license? Are these people a cancer, too?
For the record, marriage is about sex. It is about property and it is about sex. In Europe marriage was an exchange of property from the father to the husband. The husband would then gain access to the womans body for his pleasure when ever he wanted. He provided a roof over her head as long as she continued to be a sexual play toy for him.
What I do in the privacy of my bedroom is really none of your business.
Nicole and Anon, you both bring up great points. I think we can all agree on total separation of church and state. Our worldviews are fundamentally incompatible and mutually exclusive. Neither of you have an understanding of Christian marriage and you are, of course, inevitably hostile towards it. Me, I’m baffled by the perversions the State has permitted, with divorce, abortion, and coming soon, homosexuality. Allowing the State to control marriage has led to all of this animosity, so I think it would be best to extricate Christianity from the State and let the believers and unbelievers live their lives as they wish. There’s not going to be much harmony between different groups and strangers on the Internet until then, lol. Freedom leads to real diversity.
I’ll leave you with Blake: He who would persist in his folly, would become wise. If I’m wrong, then I’ll learn soon enough, so don’t worry too much about me. Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment. 🙂
Jane, Erin, Karl, and others who have commented, or who read this now with a shared sense of humanity, a personal rejection of hatred and intolerance, and a political hunger for civil rights and respect for all people, I applaud you. Well done. And, to those of you who posted, well said!
The only misstep is in your assumption that you can appeal through intellect, critical discourse, and your sense of humanity to a person who is brainwashed to believe that the Bible is the “inerrant word of God.” And not only the Bible, but her innerrant personal interpretation of it!
The fundamental issue is not her hatred and judgment of homosexuals. It is, in general, the hardened moral superiority of Christian exceptionalism. In contrast to this, I think of the most Christian person of recent times, Mother Theresa, and I note that she did not engage in crusades or tyrades against homosexuals, or any other class of God’s people. She did not stew in the juices of her own hatred, of her own judgments. Her heart did not harden with a sense of conviction, nor did her mind swell with an egotistical belief that she understood god’s plan for the world. She stayed soft in her heart and humble in her mind and soul.
But those who do claim to understand God with their small human minds, those who harden with the belief that they are his chosen ones and they are superior to whomever is the current targeted “out “group (read: sinner), well, they will not be changed by intellectual appeals. Something more extraordinary is needed. Think of Ted Haggart, who preached, lobbied and campaigned mightily against the rights of gays to marry, while at the same time was acting out his own homosexual impulses in hypocritcal secrecy. It took the humiliation of a huge public scandal and removal from his powerful pulpit to change him, even a little. It took shame in epic proportion to bring him down to the earthly ground beneath his religious ego, and now, finally, he admits that gays should at least be givin the right to civil union. It will take something comparable, something deeply personal and of life-changing magnitude, something that can bring the deeper heart and soul to the surface to impact a religious zealot, if anything ever can.
Take your young energy and your good hearts and your brilliant minds and make change in the world were it is possible to be made. Here, you are trying to plow a field that is solid rock and plant your seeds in impenetrable granite. Your time and energy is too precious to spend on this!
I write in support of Nicole M.’s comments, which are similar to what I’ve been meaning to post. Unlike Nicole, I am a straight white male man raised in the Catholic Church who is now a Lutheran. I find it utterly demoralizing that Ms. McHugh can so easily judge those she writes about, and those to whom she is responding in the thread above. One example is Ms. McHugh’s utter certainty that Nicole M. (who I do not know) has no understanding of Christian marriage and is therefore reflexively hostile to all things Christian and good. (My goodness, do you know Nicole M.? Do you know what sort of family she was raised in? Do you know her spiritual inclinations? Her church affiliation?)
Ms. McHugh, you can’t have it both ways. Either you embrace the teachings of Christ (which, at the core, are about radical, unconditional love, which is HARD), or you confess to cherry-picking his teachings in order to justify a bigotry that flows neither from faith nor from science. The temptation, of course, will be to go in a third direction — to assume that I’m a liberal professor sympathetic to a homosexual “movement” hell bent on undermining essential American values, someone who isn’t a “true” Christian. But that would be easy — and aren’t the easiest, most seductive temptations the ones about which we should be especially wary?
Your response to Karl swiftly erased what little credibility you may have possibly had as a valid arguer of a point. His comment was respectful in the face of previous mild disrespect on your part and extremely well-thought out and eloquent. Your response was to commit one of the most noticeable logical fallacies-ad hominem- and accuse him of using one? I know that I already “had my chance” to respond to your piece, but I think you’ve argued with your own words better than I ever could concerning why you would benefit from proper logic.
I recently read some of your other responses to commentors, Katie, and realize that you think those who respond without listing their first and last names are cowards. I believe they are quite the opposite.
Did you know that it is currently legal to fire a person for being any orientation other than straight? Did you also know it is currently legal to refuse employment to those queer folk? A quick internet search of my full name might lead a potential employer to this site. They read in this comments section that someone by my name admits to being gay. Now, it is plausible that they might have found a different “Nicole” than I, but a quick glance at my resume would confirm that I went to this school, and it is therefore reasonable that it is I who is commenting, and that it is I who is gay. They can decide not to hire me for my admitting that I am gay in a the comments section of the newspaper website.
It is getting frighteningly close to the time when I will have to leave Allegheny and pursue a career. You may have three more years to think about this, but some of us don’t, and some of us do not disclose our full identity online where employers can find it. You will have no problem finding a job, as you are straight and white. Someone of us are not as “fortunate” as you are, and I thank God everyday that I am gay. You made a vast assumption that I am anti-religious. I went to catechism every Sunday of my youth, and bible study every Friday night prior to college. Catholic, thank you very much.
While I feel for the most part safe on Allegheny talking about my orientation, (except when I am compared to a deadly cancer that needs eradicating), I am not yet willing for the world at large to know, and therefore, to discriminate against me. So please forgive my cowardice, and my reluctance to disclose my full name online.
I look forward to your response, and I cannot wait to get back from break and continue our discussion on deficit cultures and the likes in the class we have together 🙂
Hi Katie,
I’d like to thank you for writing an article that is intellectually challenging. Unfortunately, this is often a rarity in newspapers and the media. I’d also like to thank the above commenter for her reasons for anonymity- they make perfect sense, and I’d like to invoke her logic.
As a lesbian on campus, I immediately reacted to your article. After reading your additional comments, I even pondered whether or not your thoughts on procreation and marriage were correct. If they are, then I am certainly a lesser being, and I am certainly not qualified to ask for equal rights if I cannot equally uphold my duties as a human.
I admit, wondering about this was worrisome. Our instinct for self-preservation demands that we establish ourselves in our minds as necessary beings. Fortunately, it hit me quite suddenly why your entire argument is irrelevant: Christianity is a human invention, and none of its conclusions are based in reality. Being an atheist has its drawbacks – who really wants to face the fact that no one can be sure about anything? – but it truly is a relief to be absolved from dissecting all of these bogus arguments.
With that being said, I have utterly no desire to argue theology with you at this time. I’m merely posting this comment because I would ask you to direct your intelligence in the future towards more fruitful endeavors. You are clearly an articulate person (though your second response to Karl was atrocious – how could you debase yourself so?) and it is a shame to waste your space – and, might I add, our time – by exciting useless discussion. You yourself said that you would be content to let homosexuals alone if there were true separation of church and state, and I cannot agree with this sentiment more. Has your column done anything to further this point? Perhaps a column about the need for more stringent separation would have been a better use of your time.
I’ve read your other opinion pieces as well, and I tend to agree with many of your political views. Conservatives, however, often fall in to the same trap; using Christianity as the ultimate source of your logic will always fail, because Christianity itself is not logical. I don’t aim to cure your of your delusions on this front, but I would suggest that you use science-based logic grounded in reality before ruining your credibility with the use of religious thinking.
[On a lighter note, you look pretty cute in your picture. If you ever happen to get caught in that infectious homosexual movement, I’d be happy to take you out for a drink.]
Katie,
It seems that you are a great supporter of “consensual sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation.” Okay, cool, that’s your prerogative.
Now, Sorba said “Human nature is a rational relationship; the intelligible end of the reproductive act is reproduction,” and since you spoke in such strong favor of his argument, I am going to do what Karl did and treat these words as your personal belief. By Sorba’s logic, anyone who engages in reproductive activity knowing that they will not actually reproduce is not worthy of equal treatment. You support this logic further by expressing your distaste for birth control/prevention and saying: “With married couples throwing away old morals and just having sex to have sex, they made marriage vulnerable to all sorts of perversions.”
Okay so, consensual sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation it is.
What about heterosexuals who are born sterile? If they wish to be morally upright, must they remain celibate, even through marriage? Are they not entitled to equal rights, since they too are “unnatural”?
Hi Katie,
I’ve noticed that you’ve stopped responding, so I might never get to read your answer to my post or a few of the above, but I have only one basic question for you, with a few related questions included.
In all honesty, at this moment, do you have the sincerest intention to wait until marriage to have sex? Do you have the sincerest intention, once you are married, not to have sex until you are ready to have a child? Once you have a child within marriage, do you have the sincerest intention not to have sex with your husband until you are ready to have another child? When you decide that having more children would not be prudent considering your situation (whatever that may be), do you intend to stop having sex with your husband permanently, since you will no longer be attempting to procreate?
Re: That’s charity, not “hate.”
My understanding is that Jesus’ teachings of charity involved helping the poor and downtrodden–the reason the Sodom and Gomorrah was because the wealthy were squandering their riches rather than helping the poor. You could go so far as to say that Jesus was a socialist, which is pretty ironic, considering many of his followers today are all up in arms about it.
Re: no one has “rights” to a job
Your take on what constitute “rights” intrigue me. You’re against government handouts, per one of your older articles, which I disagree with but can understand. As you are a proponent of the “right to life,” I’m curious of what your take is on the ability to live in this capitalism-driven world without the “right” to financially support yourself of your offspring, assuming you aren’t a heathen homo.
🙂 and look, I can use emoticons just as easily to make it seem like I’m not being extremely hostile. 🙂 🙂 🙂
Beth was not talking to you. She was talking to us and her words did not fall on deaf ears.
Thank you, Katie, for providing my life with a theme song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aze6xd2WJZw
At first, I thought I could just laugh at this op-ed. There are amazingly myopic people in the world and I meet them on an everyday basis, so why should this girl be any different? I usually don’t care if people are homophobic or consider people who make homophobic statements “brave”. That’s your perogative. Unless you are an elected official and then I care because you are elected to represent the will of the people, not your will, and I want to hold you to that.
But your replies to these comments have been so out of line, so disrespectful, so unprofessional, and so incredibly unChristian and un-American that I find myself with a bitter taste in my mouth.
I know my alma mater does not encourage people to act and speak like this. Think as you will, but think logically, open-mindedly, kindly, and truly from your heart. To speak and carry oneself in a self-righteous manner, to condemn people whom you do not know, and to name call is profoundly unkind, narrow minded, and illogical for a student of Allegheny College.
Someone needs to reread 1 Corinthians 13: 1-13…and reread it every day from now until you know its words by heart and you live them.
I’m not about to waste my time or yours coming up with a response to your article because I will only be reitterating what people have already said and it’s not like you’re going to actually listen anyways.
There is one thing, however, that I would like to know. What exactly do you mean when you say “I’m Baptist. Catholic, technically.”? As a Catholic, myself, I don’t understand how you can be both, since they, while both under the category of Christianity, are different from one another.
I would also like to share this Washington Post op-ed by Desmond Tutu regarding homosexuality, Christianity, and human rights in Africa:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031103341.html
I am actually shaking with fear, anger, and disgust having read your arguments, Katie. A good friend of mine once said, “There is nothing more frightening than a true believer” because true believers, like you, refuse to see the other side of an argument, even if it is more logical than your own. For example, you stated, “Imagine having the power to prevent someone from ever existing. Yeah. That’s what birth prevention is.” A logical conclusion from this stance is that every period you have ever had has prevented a life, and you therefore are just as guilty of this crime as any of the others you mentioned. I am sure you, a true believer in an illogical argument, will not touch on this because you have no reasonable retort and have no desire to even attempt to understand the logic behind my argument. You are so convinced that your beliefs are the only “truth” that no one can or will ever be able to sway you, and that is horrifying to me and every to other lover of logic. You may ask at this point that if I believe you are such a lost cause why am I bothering to write a response? Even if you refuse to heed my arguments or even try to see my side, I guess I just feel the need to add a little sanity for my own sake.
You still have failed to answer a vital question to the debate: are sterile people forbidden from sex? What if you have sex to procreate before you realize that you are sterile? Is that a condemnable sin? Again, this is logic you will fail to recognize.
Another question I want to address is why can’t human beings develop their own morals? I am an atheist, and I believe that I have developed an excellent set of morals. I do not do good as a way to get into heaven and avoid hell, but rather because I believe it is my duty as a human being. Life is more than just a test for the afterlife for me, and it is this belief that allows me to be the best person I can be to those around me. All the “morals” you have sponged from the Bible and your Christian faith seem to me to be hurting others more than anything (hate is hurtful). So how can you consider them moral?
I do not know much about the Bible, so enlighten me. If it is the word of God, why does She have such a thing against shellfish? Leviticus forbids the eating of them. I am going to assume that you have ignored that section, and if you can ignore that how can you say that you must obey the rest as the word of God? Forgive me if I am incorrect but are you not just cherry picking from the Bible to support your unfounded beliefs handed to you from your prejudiced family?
From your response to Nicole M., it is clear that you have no understanding of the job market. Most people do not have the luxury of liking their bosses. The job market is tough and you take what you can get. No one should have a job taken away from him or her because of factors out of his or her control. And yes, a person’s sexuality is out of his or her control.
You call us wicked animals? I can see how you would think that. You are like a person bitten by an abused dog and surprised because you have no understanding of the abuse it has endured. I have argued every point here today because I truly and deeply believe that your views are hateful, hurtful, and abusive. Is it wicked to fight against something I see as such? Can you even attempt to see my point of view?
Hi, all! I want to respond to these before we all go off to spring break. Ok.
Sam: You’re absolutely right about Sodom and Gomorrah, but wrong on the socialist part. A Calvinist economist has written an economic commentary on the Bible that systemically refutes the socialists’ claim that the Bible supports their politics. (Here’s the link: http://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm) You’re also confusing the made-up right to material things with the right to exist—a fundamentally more important right.
Abby: Yes, I’m waiting till marriage, and if I never get married, oh well. I’d love to be a mother someday, but if it doesn’t happen, then it doesn’t happen. What can ya do?
Jingle (lol): I like Family Guy, but The Simpsons is funnier. 😛
Katie: Bishop Tutu is an extremely wise and loving man, but I do disagree with him about homosexuality. Laws that incarcerate homosexuals for their behaviors definitely aren’t the solution. However, it’s strange to see a new, made-up word like “homophobic” attached to God’s name. God does love homosexuals; He loves all of us, and desires all of our salvation. This doesn’t mean that sins cease to be sins just because they are currently fashionable. All eras and epochs have struggled with this concept. I know I have.
Dani: I was baptized in the Catholic Church, and they consider you a Catholic until you die, even if you do convert to another denomination or lose your faith altogether.
I’d also like to ask the forgiveness of those whom I personally offended. My opinions regarding homosexuality will never change, but I definitely should have been more polite when addressing concerns and even insults. Thank you all again for taking the time to read, comment, and respond. 🙂 Also, Katie, thank you for the verses… I love verse 4, and I appreciate the reminder. 🙂 Yes, love is patient, and love is kind. No one said this was going to be easy!
“You’re also confusing the made-up right to material things with the right to exist—a fundamentally more important right.”
Soooo. Where does the right to food and shelter enter the picture?
Hello again, all,
Unfortunately, due to time constraints and my workload, I won’t be able to answer any more of your questions and critiques on my articles. This debate here is also pretty much heading nowhere fast. It’s hard to have a discussion when tempers are flaring. If you want, you can email me, and I’ll get back to you when I’m available again. Thanks again for all of your input.
Peace,
Katie
I don’t think tempers would have flared if you had responded to earlier responses with dignity and respect for the other side.
Moreover, we have the right to freedom of expression, do we not? Is not who we love the most important expression we can make?
And I think that you should reread the first verse in particular. I see no love for your fellow man in the statements you make here. No love at all. No respect, no lack of judgment, no caring, nothing of the sort.
I just reread your response to me.
Homosexuality is not “currently fashionable”. It’s not a “fashionable” sin. No one CHOOSES to be homosexual anymore than someone CHOOSES to be heterosexual. Do you remember thinking, “You know what? I’ve thought long and hard about it, and I really feel sexually, emotionally, and physically attracted to men only”? Probably not. Moreover, why would someone CHOOSE to belong to a group of people who exist as second class citizens? Science proves it: homosexuality is mostly biologically based, primarily a cause of nature not nuture and certainly not choice.
Is choice a part of it? Yes. We all choose to act on our instincts and natural desires. Asking someone to refrain from acting on a *natural* desire that does not harm a single other soul is cruel.
Moreover, you should try reading more. Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time in all classes, all races, and all genders. In fact, there are periods of history in which homosexuality wasn’t considered a sin and was a part of normalized culture.
People who think like you are the reason America is falling behind the rest of the world. When you continue to judge another human being in such a manner, you create a society of bigotry, hatred, and systemic discrimination. Such things cannot lead to innovation, leadership, global stewardship and cooperation. Open minds and open hearts allow us to see past conventions and current obstacles so we can think forward, progress, and think about how to better the world for all people, without changing their gender, their sexuality, their race, their religion, or any other personal identifier.
Stop worrying about gay people. Start worrying about hunger, poverty, contaminated water, orphans, natural disasters, etc. One child dies every five seconds from hunger related causes. Where’s the brave person who will stand up and speak out about that?
The Campus Editorial Board is still in the process of establishing guidelines for the comment threads on alleghenycampus.com. The comments in this thread may not necessarily reflect the opinions or philosophies of the Editorial Board.
We stand behind Allegheny College’s Statement of Community: “Allegheny students and employees are committed to creating an inclusive, respectful and safe residential learning community that will actively confront and challenge racism, sexism, heterosexism, religious bigotry, and other forms of harassment and discrimination. We encourage individual growth by promoting a free exchange of ideas in a setting that values diversity, trust and equality. So that the right of all to participate in a shared learning experience is upheld, Allegheny affirms its commitment to the principles of freedom of speech and inquiry, while at the same time fostering responsibility and accountability in the exercise of these freedoms. This statement does not replace existing personnel policies and codes of conduct.”
Thank you for your patience.