Tuesday
06Mar2007
Ann Coulter Defends 'Faggot' Remark
Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 10:53AM Ann Coulter defended and explained her controversial remarks at the CPAC meeting over the weekend on last night’s Hannity and Colmes about former Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards. Coulter, a lawyer and former clerk for the Eight Circuit United States Court of Appeals, used the word “faggot” when mentioning Edwards but on Fox she explains the meaning of the word and argues in her own defense.
Full Interview:
Video Part I (22.8 MB)
Video Part II (22.8 MB)
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/945989
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (45)
Ann Coulter says outrageous things to get attention and sell books. I’m glad to see conservatives are calling her on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQYFWyqM6NE
Maybe this will prove to Ann that she can't use slang ("faggot" meaning "wuss"; not gay-bashing as such) in front of audiences like that. Really, I've got very little sympathy for her on this. It's not about moral equivalency ("Dick Durbin said this, Kerry said that, Dean said this"), she should've known it would be taken this way. I like her and will continue to read her column but this is her fault and she should take responsibility for it and not try to deflect blame. I also wish she'd remember that she's a commentator. Nobody wants another Rush Limbaugh-type entertainment provocateur.
Well, I personally am getting suspicious of Ann. She's a brilliant intellectual who needs not depend upon the common vulgate to "get" her technical expertise with words. I believe she sincerely has a great grasp on the English language and used the word "faggot" in its proper context, but when dealing with people (the rest of us) who understand "faggot" to be slang that slurs homosexuals I don't understand why she takes the risk. I mean, I say things in private with friends and family I'd never say publicly.... she doesn't seem to know the difference. If she does, why does she continue to do it? I think she knows on paper she's right, but compassion and courtesy is superior to being right.
Lots of college age voters watch Gray's Anatomy. They also use the terms gay and faggot to mean something frilly or sissy frequently. See their MySpace and Zorpia, Facebook, etc. Sometimes it just means something that looks strange to them or that they think strange.
The character on the highly popular program put himself into rehab because he got into a fight with a friend and used it.
I am much more offended by those wanting to do a virtual public stoning of Ann Coulter to recover their imagined loss of "honor" just like Muslims. I can also remember when we had freedom of speech in this country with regard to politics.
I don't like it but my own college aged kids use those terms all the time and have for years. No big deal except for those claiming to care about the Republican party yet trying to divide it like this.
They are the ones I am suspicious of. Perhaps they want to create a splinter group to support an Independent candidate, maybe somebody like Trancredo. Their motives for alienating people like me just doesn't make sense otherwise.
They did far more harm than Ann by creating this rift. Shame on them when they need every vote they can get. I am not going to pay my RNC dues which are due right now.
Instead, I am going to take that money and buy Ann's latest book. She brings more voters into the party than her detractors all combined, like her or not.
I just don't like these claims of higher levels of moral reasoning from some of those writing letters and blowing this all out of proportion while ignoring the far far worse comments by Bill Maher. I see that as sexist and a double standard for one thing.
Strong, brash women sure scare the pants off some men! Oops! I was speaking figuratively. Please, forgive me! We must never poke fun at any male's sexuality or we can by given the Coulter treatment!
Nope, I don't want any part of the smearing of Ann Coulter or those doing it. I have lost tremendous respect for some of them, too. Very disappointing behavior when they could have just downplayed the importance of one word. I cannot imagine Ronald Reagan reacting like this. Nancy Pelosi would, however. This is just like her tattling on VP Cheney to the President.
I am changing my party affiliation from RNC to Independent after twenty years so disillusioned am I with some who purport to speak for the entire party and think their opinions are facts. There are other issues I have with that but this thing with the attack on Ann Coulter is just too much!
Thanks for posting her video, Amy. At least that gives her a chance to get her side out, something her detractors just do NOT want to hear. They already know everything.
Is she crass? Yes. Is she right most of the time? Yes. She gets people talking - that can be a good thing, not that I would use the words she does, but she's always called to task while liberals can sit in the mud and fling it without consequence. BTW, thank you for the clip. I missed that episode.
Gay people are people to and deserve to be treated with respect. As I gay person I find this situation truly insulting. It is disgusting to me that conservative Americans think nothing of dehumanizing gays with nasty names and slurs. I think this controversy is good as it gets people thinking, but as a gay person I am truly shocked by how many heterosexual Americans think that using the word faggot is no big deal. I think this really shows how much bigotry there is in this country towards gay people. Heterosexual Americans really do not like or respect gays. But you know, what thats fine. If you do not like or respect us that is your problem...just give us our civil union papers and leave us alone!
dc, I believe Coulter's comments were 100% wrong and inappropriate. Especially since she wears a cross around her neck I'd think she would ask herself, "What would Jesus do?" I understand the context of her joke.....after she explained it, but nonetheless it was a bad move.
Apparently "faggot" doesn't specifically refer to gays; it's a term that literally means wimpy or geeky. I don't think most people know that, which is all the more reason she shouldn't have said it.
Respect, however, is commanded, not demanded. A person's moral character dictates the sort of respect they get or not. Gay marriage or unions is a totally separate issue and "gay" cannot be used next to "marriage". They two are opposing concepts, which is why it must be referrenced as "gay marriage". Historically and traditionall, marriage concerns a man and women. That's the inclusive defining element; man/woman. It's nothing personal.
I have a homosexual family member but even if not, I would never dream of using the word "fag" because of its derrogatory connotation. Every human being is made in the image of God. What we do with it after that is up to us.
Amy P-Its good to know that not all conservatives are in favor dehumanizing us gays! In all honesty I really do appreciate your and others non-bigoted attitude towards gays.
But I would like to say this. Heterosexual Americans do not understand gay people and they do not understand gay sexuality or culture, they are ignorant of what it means to live and grow up gay in America. Thats fine, there is nothing wrong with being ignorant. I am ignorant of heterosexuality. I know I speak for a lot of gay people when I say that I never have or never will understand heterosexual people...and I ve known so many heterosexuals in my life I cant even count how many its been! I would like to ask this: If we (gays) dont understand you (heteros) and we grow up around you people, then how ignorant are you people of us since most heterosexuals can count on one hand the number of gays they have known in their life? Gays and heterosexuals are DIFFERENT. We are not the same people and we have very different experiences living and growing up in this country. I think heterosexuals Americans need to acknowledge that especially when talking about homosexuality.
Also, it is important to note that gays do experience bigotry in this country (this is not to say that being gay in America is terrible, it is not, its relativly good to be gay in the US compared to being gay other parts of the world...the Caribbean, the Middle East, China, ect).
I would also like to ask: How often do you think gay couples have the word faggot screamed at them when they walk down the street holding hands? Of course heterosexual Americans do not know the answer to this question; most heterosexuals no absolutly nothing about gay people's lives.
As far as gay marriage, I really dont care about what heterosexuals think about it. If you think homosexuality is wrong, thats fine. You have a right to think what you want. I do NOT have anything against heterosexual "disagreement" with gay sexuality. Just so long as you dont call me and my partner faggots as we walk down the street I could care less what you think about our relationship or our sexuality. Your opinion does not diminish what me and my partner have. The bottom line is that as long as heterosexual Americans proudly dehumanize and attack gays and publicly brag about it to other heterosexuals we (the faggots you attack) will not trust you. We will always associate your attempts at stoping us from marrying, ect as a representation of your bigotry. And how could you blame us? As you said Amy, respect is commanded and the reality is that most gay people do not respect heterosexuals and their views on homosexuality because heterosexuals have failed to prove that they are not bigots. That is why a lot of gay people share my attitude towards straight people which is "Just give us our civil union papers and leave us alone."
Ann's tongue-in-cheek usage of "faggots" here is clearly a poke at the PC police - something lost on those relying on the secular - progressives are banking on as prevailing orthodoxy (its not).
FWIW: In that context, a faggot, ie, male homosexual, is ordniarily a person who has surrendered the more virile/virtuous attributes of male sexuality for effeminate/sensous pleasure-seeking at the expense of true manhood. This is common knowledge among 13-year olds. Ann's point was that she could not use the vulgar vernacular to describe Edwards' lightweight candidacy without incurring the wrath of the (bigoted, intolerant) PC police. At least that's what I hear/read. Ann is a brilliant satirist with a prophetic message and and wicked wit for
needling the double-minded/hypocrisy of the left.
Johnny is absolutely correct about Coulter's usage/intent of the word, but I wouldn't go to such an extend as she to defend it. Then again, I'd never say it, even in the privacy of my own home.
dc, I will comment more in the morning. Thank you for your comments.
Homosexual behavior is sin. So is fornication, adultery and lust. Christ is the Savior from these sins and sinful inclinations. Ann was simply illustrating the absurd with absurdity as the master, Rush Limbuagh has taught us all. Ann knows what she is doing.
All of you who defend Coulter have never had the word faggot screamed at you when walking down the street alone. You are all heterosexuals who do not understand the true hatred associated with that word. Not calling someone a faggot is not about political correctness it is about common decency. You heterosexuals should really go out and meet gay people and talk to us about this because it is obvious that you do not understand the context of such words.
I would also like to add....
Jonny-You miss the point. The overwhelming majority of gays are not practicing Christians. We do not believe in Christianity or want to convert. If you are Christian and think gay sex is wrong that is your personal right. Thats fine, people are free to believe whatever religion they choose and are freee to practice it. What IS wrong is hatred of gay people. All gays ask is that heterosexuals respect us, not call us names, not degrade us, ect. If you think gay sexuality is wrong, whatever...most gay people could care less; it is anti-gay bigotry that we are against and that truly hurts us.
"that being gay in America is terrible, it is not"
No the whole world. Don't try to single out Americans. That is a leftist ploy of didactic Anti-Americanism.
"Heterosexual Americans do not understand gay people"
Biggest load of garbage in the world; there you go again with Americans.
"Of course heterosexual Americans do not know the answer"
The F-word is screamed at individuals that are not even gay in history all the time, you have no idea what your are talking about.
“The bottom line is that as long as heterosexual Americans proudly dehumanize and attack gays”
F-word has long been a derogatory word in history used for anyone that appears weak, not just gays. It was used for the word for cigarettes for a long time in Europe. Coulter didn’t call Edwards Gay she called him weak.
“heterosexuals have failed to prove that they are not bigots”
You general statements are so out of line with reality.
“That is why a lot of gay people share my attitude”
Wrong. Only you share your twisted attitude with generalizations that are myths.
J. Edwards goes around College Campus stumping for equitable sharing of resources, and he doesn’t give a damn penny of his billion dollar fortune to anyone in need. He secretly loves that the Military is protecting his fortune by fighting the very people who want to take it away from him. He is a fraud, and Coulter called him out on it. If anyone here lived in the 1780s-‘90s and heard American political rhetoric, you all would have heart- attacks. Coulter has free speech rights and groups of people are trying ban entire set of words which will not stop anytime soon if they get the court systems to begin to ban them and criminalize them. It is degradation of free speech an American institution. If you cannot handle American free speech then move.
I am not missing the point. Homosexuals incur the persecution they endure by and large because they are threat to moral social order in the same way that terrorists are a threat to secure societies. You are atttempting to normalize/mainstream abberant, disordered behavior that ultimately harms all of soctiety. It is abject wickedness in Christian morailty, but certainly not outside the reach of Christian evangelical reach. We CARE. We LOVE you. We WANT you to attain salvation. We love you too much to just gliby go along with your fatal error.
Johnny
BTW, Bill Maher said he would like to see the vice president assassinated, and the left-wing Media will not condemn him, but instead focus only on Coulter. Go to Daily Kos, and see how many post there have the F-word in them, directed at everything that moves and some things that do not. There is no moral relativism.
I'm with you Amy, the use of the word IS derogatory and I'm glad that you recognise that :-)
Jonny-comparing gays to terrorists, that is just silly. As I said earlier, you have every right to be Christian and think homosexuality is wrong, but in a free society us gays have every right to disagree with you. To arguee that gays deserve persecution is disgusting and downright scary. Also, there are millions of opinions as to what "moral order" is. Some crazy people (myself included) would argue its immoral to use the word faggot on TV, but what do I know. As a member of a free society I have a right to not obey Christian teachings if I dont want to. You should respect the fact that not everyone believes in your religion just as I respect the fact that not everyone loves homosexuality.
Ha, I didnt see your response to my post CalPatriot- well here is my response...
As for singling out Americans and being anti-Aemrican, that claim is baseless. I simply use the term heterosexual Americans because sexuality is culturally defined. We live in America, Ann Coulter is an American, I assume you are too, so our entire social and cultural experience is an American experience...subsequently our understanding of sexuality is an American understanding of sexuality. In other parts of the word sexuality is conceptualized differently...for example, in China, ideologies of sexuality, sexual morality, and sexual deviance are different. The most easy way of seeing cultural differences in understandings of sexuality is through sexual concent laws...in different countries, ages of sexual concent are different because there are different ideologies with respect to appropriate sexuality in different societies. In one society it may be considered wrong and perverted for an adult to have sex with anyone under 18 while in another it may not be seen as wrong. For example the age of sexual consent in Germany is 14, while in the US it is 18. This is why I say American heterosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals, because in America heterosexual identity and sexuality are distinct from in other parts of the world. Then same goes for homosexuality, I am an American gay/an American homosexual. I cannot speak about what French heterosexuals/homosexuals or Russian heterosexuals/homosexuals are like as I do not live in France or Russia.
You say that it is garbage that I argue that American heterosexuals do not understand gay people, but why is it garbage? Most heterosexuals in America know very few gay people on a personal level. How many gay people do you know? How many of your close friends are gay?
Yes the word faggot has been used through out history and has had different meanings over time (language is constantly changing), but in contemporary America the word clearly refers to gay men and is frequently thrown at gays. Furthermore, even if a heterosexual is called faggot the word still has that gay connotation...that is why we are all talking about homosexuality after Ann Coulter called Edwards a fag. Furthermore, the fact that faggot has not always been used to refer to gays does not take away from the fact that gays are often called faggots when walking down the street. It is wrong to taunt, harrass, or call someone names becasue of their sexuality period.
Yes, Coulter does have free speach. If heterosexuals want to call gay people faggots, sissies, pansies, ect they have every right to do so, BUT that does not change the reality that using these words to refer to us is an expression of bigotry and is not right. I never said that I am in favor of silencing anyone.
Also, you argue that I am out of line with reality, but as a gay American person I honestly believe that heterosexuals have failed to prove they are not anti-gay bigots. MAybe I'm wrong, maybe most American heterosexuals love gays and really respect us and dont have a problem with us, but I just dont see it. Furthermore, if American heterosexuals regularly use horrible terms like faggot and regularly attack gays then how can you blame us for thinking you are bigots?
As far as me having a twisted ideology that only I share, I think that is going a little too far to say that. Most gay people I know just want to be left alone and given their civil union papers.
"All of you who defend Coulter have never had the word faggot screamed at you when walking down the street alone. You are all heterosexuals who do not understand the true hatred associated with that word. Not calling someone a faggot is not about political correctness it is about common decency. You heterosexuals should really go out and meet gay people and talk to us about this because it is obvious that you do not understand the context of such words."
How are you dressing that people instantly know you're gay by looking at you?
All that aside though, I think Ann damaged her cause. People are talking more about this than whatever else her presentation consisted of. I'm a Christian (a paleocon, if you will) and I look around and don't see too many devout believers in this country. What I *do* see are a bunch of Diet Coke Christians or else full on beligerant secularists/athiests. We're not feeling a lot of love either, esp right now, so stop whining.
And JohnnyP, I respectfully disagree. I know what point she was trying to make but that doesn't make it okay. I mean, she's got a point (she can't say that word. Big duh!!), she just has a lousy way of proving it. It'd be the same if she said "Well, I can't really talk about Obama because people who use *N-BOMB* need to be in rehab". That word is as hurtful as "faggot". Coulter identifies herself as a Christian and she needs to act like one. She's better than this! It doesn't matter what the Dick Durbins and Howard Deans of this world say. That doesn't make it okay, ya know?
Oh and dc? I don't feel the slightest pressure to "prove" my lack of hate for homosexuals to you or anybody else.
All you Coulter defenders call her brilliant and eloquent and sharp. Yet you take on face value her dissembling, whining, pathetic attempt to mischaracterize her hate speach by saying she was just calling John Edwards weak. No standard dictionary defines faggot as weak, or wuss or anything like that. You all need to own up to the fact that she meant what she said. Yet as you complain liberals do she is parsing and obfuscating and trying to redefine the meaning of "is." Welcome to our world.
Elmer, I'm in my mid-20's and one zinger from my younger, more immature jr high days was to call someone "fag", "faggot", "gay" or some derivative thereof to state a lack of masculinity on the part of the person being insulted. Rarely, if ever, was it supposed to be understood as an accurate summation of someone's sexuality. Mind you, we're splitting hairs over whether she was being hateful or just being immature; you tell me which is worse for an educated adult such as her.
As for defending her, I certainly am not doing that. Please see my other comments for more.
Trent-I am a very feminine gay person. People usually assume I am gay because of the way I walk, talk, ect. No one deserves to be harrassed because of how they walk, look, or dress.
Wow. Just wow.
dc said, ”I would like to ask this: If we (gays) dont understand you (heteros) and we grow up around you people, then how ignorant are you people of us since most heterosexuals can count on one hand the number of gays they have known in their life?”
“Understanding” is overrated. Compassion and respect, sure. The truth is there is a point at which we cannot truly understand each other and it becomes disingenuous to say we try. I’m not sure what there’s not to understand about heterosexuality… it’s totally natural biologically, physiologically and sexually. Civilizations rise and fall based on how we conduct our family and sexual lives.
I’ve seen gay couples buying condoms and trying on lipsticks at department stores and haven’t seen anyone yell “faggot” at them. I’m sure it happens, but I’d suggest that’s a matter of class and abuse rather than disagreement. I’ve seen women modestly dressed (including myself) who’ve been the target of verbal assault by men in base and lewd ways. My point is that there will always be classless and tactless people in the world. I try to correct situations when anyone, gay or otherwise, are mocked or targeted.
I think you’re being a bit naïve if you think the Middle East treats homosexuals well! And China? Okay, maybe the Caribbean……
I’ve seen crippled people or retarded people being made fun of and assaulted, too. Human nature is pretty cruel.
Don’t worry, you’re in no danger of running into me and being called derogatory names. I believe it disrespects the love God has for you and all people to act in that way.
I’m sure you will associate attempts to prevent the altering of an historical bedrock like marriage to be bigoted, but it really isn’t fair. Marriage is what it is…a spiritual/legal union between man and woman. Civil unions are one thing; marriage is another. Even heteros have the equivalent of civil unions; they’re called common law marriage.
Martin Luther King Jr. said we should not judge on the basis of color but on the content of the character. About a year ago I got a fantastic e-mail from a gay blogger who endorsed my view. He’s a conservative. He totally understood the concept of marriage and said he had no right to change it. While I will not post his mail to me, I have an enormous amount of respect for him because he’s willing to be honest and not politically correct on the issue.
You said:
A friend of mine once said, “It’s funny how gays say marriage is just a piece of paper yet they demand their piece of paper.”
Johnny is right when he talks about homosexual behavior being wrong. I’m just as hard on heteros who commit fornication.
In a way, dc, you’ve painted yourself into a corner because while you say most homosexuals aren’t Christians, it is Christianity and her principles that preaches the dignity and protection of all human life. It is Christians like me (as well as some good liberal people with ulterior motives) who lobby for your human rights. At the same time, humanity without God is brutal and you should expect to be pointed out and mocked by them. It is a “survival of the fittest” existence without God.
I understand that without the moral Law of God you feel free to marry, have a civil union or just “be” with whoever you want. At least in God there is compassion and a community that helps you carry that cross. This is what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality:
Now, I ran across some stats that point toward the homosexual lifestyle not being quite as gay as some suppose:
Dc, you have to expect that as a minority group you have to expect some hardships. Do you think I as a Christian, a military wife or a stay at home mother don’t receive mocking and criticisms? We all do. If you stand out because you hold hands with a partner, it can be something that will attract negative attention. Instead of presuming the whole world to be bigoted, perhaps ask what it is about that which makes the majority of people think it’s odd.
Great response, Amy. Dispassionate and logical all around. Life span of homosexual male = 42 years - need we say more?
“sexuality is culturally defined”
More made up crap by you. You are a homo in Berlin, the same as Bangkok, the same as Buda Pest, the same in Montreal. Same goes with the F-word.
“Ann Coulter is an American”
That has nothing to do with the F-word.
“why is it garbage?”
You make up or join in the myth and conceptualization of the left that the f-word is connoted to homosexuals, it is not. No where in the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, does imply any such thing. Absolutely no reference whatsoever to what you claim. It is a myth that was created by the left.
“if a heterosexual is called faggot the word still has that gay connotation”
Wrong. It means wimp, just like it has throughout history. I came from Middle English as fagge: ‘broken thread in cloth, loose end’, and eventually became used as a general term for weakness, because that is what a broken thread in clothing is describing.
“If heterosexuals want to call gay people faggots, sissies, pansies, ect they have every right to do so”
damn strait.
Historic gay regiments in the Classical Greek infantries that fought valiantly against the Persian terrorists can never be called the f-word. They were, of course, homosexuals’. They got wounded, lived with scares, often died to the last man, and fought together as a team and were one of the best divisions in Greek History. But they were not wimps. Coulter called Edwards a wimp, because he is a coward against the War on Terrorism.
“to us is an expression of bigotry”
Wrong. Strait wimps are called the F-word all the time. Has nothing to do with being gay, only the left has tried to invent this notion.
“you argue that I am out of line with reality”
I say way out of line with reality.
“heterosexuals have failed to prove they are not anti-gay bigots”
That is a myth created by you and other myth makers.
“As far as me having a twisted ideology that only I share, I think that is going a little too far
When you make asinine general statements like saying all heterosexuals are anti-gay bigots then you are truly twisted and do not live in reality.
The thing is, faggot is not an innocent schoolyard taunt meaning wuss etc. It's the word kids would use before beating the crap out of you becuae you're gay. Fag was used nonstop in school and in pop culture - faggot isn't, They've essentially become different words. When it's used, it's in sentences like 'die faggot!" Yes, it's just a word... but that word is used to convey a really hateful meaning...
Amy says: "Instead of presuming the whole world to be bigoted, perhaps ask what it is about that which makes the majority of people think it’s odd. "
Just a few decades ago it was probably considered odd amongst members in the "Causasian" community in America to have any positive relationships with black people. Just like the gay people who you consider to be "odd", those Americans who elected to shun the so called cultural "norm" were equally likely to be ostrasized for their associations with african Americans.
I don't think gay people care if they are NOT, recognized for marriage by the catholic church or any other non-governmental institution. They want the civil benefits of being married. Is that difficult to understand? so yah even though its just a "piece of paper" it has legal benefits.
Amy, it may seem logical to assume, citing reproductive purposes, that homosexuality is "unnatural". However, it still doesnt explain why, there's homosexual behaviour amongst other other animals, apart from humans.
Mavic, your right in a general sense, but from the get go of the founding of this country Free blacks had some legal rights in the north, they could hold a lawyer, seek redress, seek employment on their own, and remain free.
"consider to be "odd": that was not the view in the north. They were understood to be human beings. The Constitution and their representation did not reflect the country as a whole. Bitter fights in Washington were the norm on how much the Black person was a real man, or in their wording a ‘whole’ person. This didn’t mean that every Congressman or Representative viewed them as ‘part’ human; that was just a consensus to keep the political process moving – much of that law remained a bulwark of the south’s determination to under –represent them in society.
Rules of the south and north were severely opposed. I do not know why you are standing so hard on this position, as with American, because right know the trend is it will not last that long, and soon most people strait or gay will have diminished rights, from whomever conquers this land.
"apart from humans" weak argument. It just shows that it exists in the animal kingdom and within the human kingdom.
Mavic, it's interesting that you justify homosexuality by using animal behavior. That seems oddly ironic. Although I'm uncomfortable talking about the sex lives of animals, here's something to consider: whatever animal examples you think you have, they are a result of sexual instinct. With the lack of a receptive female, the male still has the instinct and will resort to whatever confused pursuit he can find. I've never seen a case in which two male animals were 1) functioning at their desired endeavor (its a back up, not primary objective) or 2) the receiving male is particularly happy that he's the target of another male.
Even if you can produce evidence that the victimized male animal is enjoying the assualt (it's not an affectionate exchange of persons, so let's be real), it's because they're ANIMALS and are confused about their options! Come on, Mavic.
I wonder how these same sex animal couples have managed to procreate. Or are you suggesting they are confused when they mate with females?
Mavic, don't go there. Skin color and how you have sex are NOT on the same wave length. I'm always offended for African-Americans, particularly the ones who led the civil rights effort, when I hear that sort of moral equation. Can gays vote? Are they refused service in restaurnts? Are they lynched? Then don't insult blacks by using that analogy.
Gays can have civil unions in several states, including my home state of New Jersey. They can even get insurance to cover their partners. It may surprise some people to know that there are assaults on heterosexuals as well. Hate is hate, and whether some woman is killed by her husband or a homosexual shot outside a gay bar, its driven by the same fuel, not something exclusive to those of us who oppose the lifestyle.
"other animals, apart from humans"
Let's say you're right. Let's say that homosexuality (as we understand it in human society) is represented among animals in numbers too great to suggest they're anything besides an isolated abberation.
It means nothing.
Humans are made in God's image and He has commanded us not have sexual relationships of any kind outside the context of a one-on-one heterosexual marriage, period. Any sexual activity outside of those parameters is an abomination to him.
THAT is the only standard I care about.
Amy P:
What you've dragged up in the form of that freerepublic page frankly defies belief. Here's what it says near the bottom:
A phrase that has come up recently in this earth is "sexual orientation." This is a phrase made up by homosexuals to try to make themselves look less filthy than they really are. The purpose of the phrase is to take the spotlight from what these perverts do, and put it on the notion that they are just poor, mistreated people, who simply are attracted to members of the same sex - as if they aren't engaging in activity forbidden by God Almighty. "Sexual orientation," as used today, has nothing to do with sexual activity (yeah, right), but only refers to who or what a particular person is attracted to. If you think that people of other "sexual orientations" are just fine, let's see what other "sexual orientations" you would necessarily have to accept as wholesome and pure. If you're not going to discriminate based on "sexual orientation", then you must not discriminate against any of the following. Bestiality, pedophile, necrophilia., exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, masochism, sadism, transvestitism, voyeurism. If you discriminate against any of these, you're a hypocrite. These "sexual orientations" are generally known as "paraphilias", and are mental disorders - just like homosexuality used to be (29).
And from the bit you picked up:
The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8)
Whoooaaa!!!! If you believe that, you'll believe anything: this is just pure quackery... This poster is a rabid homophobe and you have no compunction quoting him...
Gert, you're welcome to try to disprove the stats if you want. There are many others that support the data, like the Heritage Foundation and others. I haven't had time to do the research but I can if it makes a difference.
I cannot vouche for anyone else but with all assurity I can say that I am not homophobic. I am never afraid of homosexuals. I wish only the best for all people and in my opinion, the best is to convert to Christianity and serve Christ as master instead of conditions like homosexuality, heterosexuality or anything else. Christ is a far more benevolent master.
Amy, whether or not you're homophobic is rather beside the point.
Your faith tells you that homosexuality is morally wrong and you accept that. However, where does your need to somehow justify this belief with pseudo-facts come from? It's almost as if you don't really believe it and need a crutch to prop up your belief regarding the moral wrongness of homosexuality...
Most references on that page are nearly 20 years old: considering they refer to quite specific issues, this is definitely old material.
In any case I've dedicated a post to this page but I've kept your name and your blog out of it. If you want a right of reply, you can do it here...
Gert, nature tells me homosexuality is naturally wrong and my faith tells me, of course, that it's morally wrong. The sphere of the spirit is what determines morality. Law comes from God; laws are legislated morality. I wish a better lifestyle for people than to live the homosexual lifestyle.
My reply to Gert on her site....:
Gert, with all due respect, homophobia means literally to be afraid of homosexuality. I have nothing to fear; but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion.
I have a close loved one who spent years as a rock-n-roller and lived in an atmosphere condusive to all sorts of bad things. He lived with gay roommates, had gay friends, and the lifestyle and behavior is a step beyond even immoral heterosexual behavior.
Those stats that say many "homosexual encounters occur while drunk, high...." are true. The leading cause of death among gay men is suicide. And please don't blame that on pressure from society; I would have committed suicide long ago if that were the case.
It is indeed unnatural. I don't think I need to draw you a map. But don't confuse the condition with the individuals, or should I say confuse my estimation of both.
One of my brothers is gay. I have no problem loving him or liking him. I do both. I'm not saying he chose his condition or not, but he's been a drug user, alcohol abuser, and suicidal. He isn't abnormal for his circumstance, and he has supportive parents.
Johnny and I, as Christians, have helped gay men. One guy in particular comes to mind; his name was Curtis. He was dying of AIDS and I cooked for him, showed him compassion, all the things that Christ commands us to do in Matthew 25 out of love.
We also went to a funeral of a family friend who was gay; he died outside a gay bar in a fight.
I've also done hospice work with AIDS victims (from drug use) who were personal friends.... I knew a LOT because we were involved in a drug rehab ministry. I cleaned up their vomit and diarrhea, jobs the nurses weren't thrilled about doing.
So before you go spouting off that I'm homophobic, I'd suggest you evaluate your own acts of kindness and charity toward gays.
Look, the homosexual desire is very strong few can master it. I have no bias against anyone because they are gay. My lifestyle has been one of compassion towards GAYS. The behavior, however, is unhealthy. Love doesn't just tell people to do what they want even if it kills them, it advises the best case scenario. I don't think gays need to stop being who they are; I just think they need to be responsible with who they are. Some are, some are. And yes, gay sex is immoral. To anyone not relgious this doesn't matter, but to anyone with a heart it should.
So, I guess the laws against the discrimination of minority groups, such as homosexuals, are also morality derived from God's laws? Strange how the law (Divinely inspired, naturellement) doesn't actually specify that homosexuality is immoral and thus should really be outlawed. Damn liberals, eh?
No, Gert, absolutely not. Anti-discrimination laws are good, healthy, necessary and I support them 100%. You're unable to recognize that I don't hate gays nor am I a homophobe. They deserve any legal protection. See, you liberals have to divide to conquer, instead of dealing like I am with dignity of the human person. I fully embrace and support the promotion of that dignity. I do not support Coulter's remark because of its connotation. You have no way of knowing this about me but I have reprimanded people for using that very word: fag.
Homosexuality cannot be outlawed, and it makes no sense to try. Sodomy is already illegal in most states whether it's enforced or not, so again you're wrong.
WHO CARS THIS IS NEW CENTURY MY FATHER CALLS ME FAGGOT ALL THE TIME,MY FATHER LOVE S ME EVEN I'AM GAY MAN!