Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Ross Douthat: "Why won't gays stop correctly identifying my homophobia as just like my racism?"   (nytimes.com) divider line 423
    More: Obvious, Bob Jones University, homophobia, conservatisms, Jim Crow, gays  
•       •       •

4476 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Mar 2014 at 1:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



423 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-03 12:05:47 PM  
Completely eviscerated here. Link
 
2014-03-03 12:08:26 PM  
Sorry, Ross, you're not going to have to get gay married, even if that is your secret fantasy.
 
2014-03-03 12:12:37 PM  
web3.encyclopediavirginia.org

Remember how society crumbled when the Supreme Court overruled miscegenation laws in favor of the Lovings in Loving v. Virginia?

No? Me, neither.
 
2014-03-03 12:13:27 PM  
I don't know what's worse: The intolerant conservative with his fear, ignorance, and hatred of homosexuals or the intolerant headline that so eloquently displays subby's fear, ignorance, and hatred of conservatives.
 
2014-03-03 12:17:19 PM  

Lucky LaRue: I don't know what's worse: The intolerant conservative with his fear, ignorance, and hatred of homosexuals or the intolerant headline that so eloquently displays subby's fear, ignorance, and hatred of conservatives.


WRONG! Much like myself, subby is pointing and laughing. You're the bigot for pointing out my bigotry is weak ass sauce.
 
2014-03-03 12:17:22 PM  

Lucky LaRue: subby's fear, ignorance, and hatred of conservatives


"Ross Douthat" = "Conservatives"?
 
2014-03-03 12:25:27 PM  
Conservatives don't seem to understand that having a bigoted belief is not excused simply because it's grounded in religion.
 
2014-03-03 12:30:05 PM  
From TFA:"In this scenario, religious conservatives would essentially be left to promote their view of wedlock within their own institutions, as a kind of dissenting subculture emphasizing gender differences and procreation, while the wider culture declares that love and commitment are enough to make a marriage."

Kinda of nailed it on the farking head.  Stopped reading right here.
 
2014-03-03 12:48:27 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Lucky LaRue: subby's fear, ignorance, and hatred of conservatives

"Ross Douthat" = "Conservatives"?


I hate to break it to our Beamish Boy, but not all "Conservatives" support this sort of asshattery. It's actually because I'm fair Conservative still that I support marriage equality. Freedom of religion, equality under the law, and the right to privacy. Well, that and my Grandma teaching me at an early age to keep my nose out of other folk's business. It's not their Conservativeness that folks point and laugh at, but the asshattery that they use to try to excuse more asshattery.

If you don't like being called an asshat, repeatedly, one might think that, if multiple folks KEEP calling you an asshat, that the problem may in fact be on your end.

Who folks love is none of my damn business. Even if they're *shudder* Furries. None of my damn business. Furries creep me the f*ck out, but that's none of my damn business. I was for marriage equality for a long time, because it's none of my damn business, and to be honest, a faction of churches pushing their view of what is meet and proper, while denying other faiths and those without faith even their right to marry is damn stupid. It is a violation of our Constitutional rights, and it should be addressed. That my daughter recently came out to me, as bisexual, means that I now have more at stake, than my previous not wanting to be a busy body meddling in other folk's business. Get in the way of my little girl's happiness, be you a crazy ass feminist who just wants her to pick a side, or a Fudie who considers her choices immoral, and then you have a pissed off father, who votes, and who has access to firearms and a fair amount of rock salt to deal with.

It's not Conservatism that is in play here, it's being an asshat. That "Social Conservatives" keep drumming up an agenda that is neither terribly social in that they really don't seem to like most of their neighbors on grounds of their race, religion, and choices, and likewise none too Conservative in that they keep pushing an agenda that is radicalized to the point of looking towards a theocracy and throwing away the Constitution, I might consider these radicals to be something far from Conservative in the least, and hypocritical knuckle draggers who envision throwing away everything that folks strived for the last two hundred and fifty years to achieve, at worst.

I am embarrassed for them, because someone has to be since they seem to have no shame on their own...
 
2014-03-03 12:53:58 PM  
IT now seems certain that before too many years elapse, the Supreme Court will be forced to acknowledge the logic of its own jurisprudence on same-sex marriage and redefine marriage to include gay couples in all 50 states

I have a big problem with the use of the word "redefine". It's not like there was ever any ambiguity or confusion or even set definition that marriage only equaled man+ woman. If I were to say "in the Bible, Lamech's wives were named Zillah and Adah" would the definition be redefined or would the term be understood without redefinition? If I say "Tom and Mark got married", there is no question what happened. Marriage hasn't been redefined, the same structure is still there. Marriage just now legally recognizing more.
 
2014-03-03 12:54:39 PM  
Is it my imagination or has the religious right been pushing the 'omg persecution!" thing really hard lately? Seems that ever screed I've read lately tries to make an issue out of how bad off Christians aree, and how they are under constant attack. Over 90% of this country self identifies as some flavor of Christian. You cannot be the oppressed minority when your group is the gotdamn majority religion in the nation!
 
2014-03-03 12:58:56 PM  
So being marginalized, being sued, losing tax-exempt status - this will be uncomfortable, but we should keep perspective and remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution.

If you read all the way to the bottom it ends on a pretty reasonable note.
 
2014-03-03 01:06:17 PM  
OMG!  It's like society will have to undertake some introspection as it comes to the realization that Americans are way more diverse than just white Christians.

Your parochial discomfort does not mean the world is going to end.
 
2014-03-03 01:08:36 PM  
FTA: What makes this response particularly instructive is that such bills have been seen, in the past, as a way for religious conservatives to negotiate surrender - to accept same-sex marriage's inevitability while carving out protections for dissent. But now, apparently, the official line is that you bigots don't get to negotiate anymore.

It's only "religious conservatives" who have seen such bills as a way to "negotiate surrender"; the other side has instead looked at it more as trying to use their last iota of rapidly fading political support for armoring off final bastions of bigotry to scream "it's tradition!" from, and see no reason why homophobes should be allowed any additional bastions beyond those that were allowed to the racists.

Aside from a minority that are noticing those old racist bastions and reconsidering whether those should be allowed to stand in the 21st century....
 
2014-03-03 01:13:30 PM  

Weaver95: Is it my imagination or has the religious right been pushing the 'omg persecution!" thing really hard lately? Seems that ever screed I've read lately tries to make an issue out of how bad off Christians aree, and how they are under constant attack. Over 90% of this country self identifies as some flavor of Christian. You cannot be the oppressed minority when your group is the gotdamn majority religion in the nation!


It's the only leg they have left to stand on, and it's not much of a leg, really.
 
2014-03-03 01:14:53 PM  
"I hate all of these people who think that a restaurant refusing to serve gays is just like a restaurant refusing to serve blacks!  It's totally different!"
 
2014-03-03 01:15:24 PM  

Weaver95: Is it my imagination or has the religious right been pushing the 'omg persecution!" thing really hard lately? Seems that ever screed I've read lately tries to make an issue out of how bad off Christians aree, and how they are under constant attack. Over 90% of this country self identifies as some flavor of Christian. You cannot be the oppressed minority when your group is the gotdamn majority religion in the nation!


The old knocks against gay marriage:
1. It will ruin society
2. It is tantamount to child abuse
3. It will make straights less likely to marry
4. It will force churches to perform gay marriages
5. It doesn't promote procreation, and therefore shouldn't be allowed
6. It will lower tax revenues as more people become eligible for marriage tax benefits

... They've all run out of steam, been picked apart, or were just plain false or completely discriminatory from the start.  Now they're looking for something with a strong, emotional message, with some clearly-defined, Constitutional backdrop.  I see it as a desperation move, but then I'm biased.
 
2014-03-03 01:24:00 PM  

factoryconnection: Weaver95: Is it my imagination or has the religious right been pushing the 'omg persecution!" thing really hard lately? Seems that ever screed I've read lately tries to make an issue out of how bad off Christians aree, and how they are under constant attack. Over 90% of this country self identifies as some flavor of Christian. You cannot be the oppressed minority when your group is the gotdamn majority religion in the nation!

The old knocks against gay marriage:
1. It will ruin society
2. It is tantamount to child abuse
3. It will make straights less likely to marry
4. It will force churches to perform gay marriages
5. It doesn't promote procreation, and therefore shouldn't be allowed
6. It will lower tax revenues as more people become eligible for marriage tax benefits

... They've all run out of steam, been picked apart, or were just plain false or completely discriminatory from the start.  Now they're looking for something with a strong, emotional message, with some clearly-defined, Constitutional backdrop.  I see it as a desperation move, but then I'm biased.


Reposted for Relevance...

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
 
2014-03-03 01:28:18 PM  

hubiestubert: Reposted for Relevance...


Pretty much.
 
2014-03-03 01:38:30 PM  

Weaver95: Is it my imagination or has the religious right been pushing the 'omg persecution!" thing really hard lately?


There's a whole thread on it here.

Basically, they think that they can trap progressives in a hypocritical stance:
1) discrimination and intolerance is bad;
2) refusing to let people discriminate and be intolerant is also intolerance and discrimination;
therefore
3) progressives are discriminating against bigots.
And if 3 is true and progressives believe 1 is true, then progressives are hypocrites.

Which makes logical sense, except for the fact that premise 1 is over-broad: intolerance of people being intolerant is not bad.
 
2014-03-03 01:41:30 PM  
Farking dinosaurs.
Why give them air time?
 
2014-03-03 01:44:03 PM  
It's actually the same argument tactic as the whole "you're pro-choice, but anti-death penalty! Kill babies, but not people?! Hypocrite!" thing. This one is just couched more in terms of "freedom".
 
2014-03-03 01:48:32 PM  

Theaetetus: It's actually the same argument tactic as the whole "you're pro-choice, but anti-death penalty! Kill babies, but not people?! Hypocrite!" thing. This one is just couched more in terms of "freedom".


Remember kids: it's not REAL freedom if you can't keep other folks from exercising the choices you disagree with...

What is amazing, is that folks are arguing that their freedoms are being abrogated by letting them speak, and letting folks make up their own damn minds up about their blather...
 
2014-03-03 01:56:05 PM  
Can't help but read that as Ross Douchethat.
 
2014-03-03 01:58:27 PM  
And where conflicts arise - in a case where, say, a Mormon caterer or a Catholic photographer objected to working at a same-sex wedding

Why do we never hear about Catholic photographers refusing to work Lutheran weddings or Mormon caterers refusing to work Baptists weddings?
 
2014-03-03 01:58:39 PM  
Wow. What a whiny biatch.

What makes this response particularly instructive is that such bills have been seen, in the past, as a way for religious conservatives to negotiate surrender - to accept same-sex marriage's inevitability while carving out protections for dissent. But now, apparently, the official line is that you bigots don't get to negotiate anymore.

You don't. Too farking bad if you want to. You want to dissent based on religious reasons? Do it. You can in what you say and how you worship. That ends with how you run your business and how it deals with the public.
 
2014-03-03 01:59:23 PM  
"long list of topics on which Americans disagree without making a political issue out of it."

What the hell is he talking about. Aside from driving on the right hand side of the road is there anything in America that people haven't made a political issue out of. Science and facts are political issues for farks sake.
 
2014-03-03 02:01:16 PM  

Lucky LaRue: I don't know what's worse: The intolerant conservative with his fear, ignorance, and hatred of homosexuals or the intolerant headline that so eloquently displays subby's fear, ignorance, and hatred of conservatives.


Ignorance? How can you be ignorant of the conservatives' racism, fear and homophobia? They blast it all day and all night, it's in their party paltform.

/I know, i know, noticing that you're a terrified racist bigoted homophobe means I am blah blah blah
 
2014-03-03 02:02:16 PM  
I've always liked the argument that if you have a problem with theists thoughts on gay people, then it's you who is some sort of raging bigot... Against them.

As I helpfully keep reminding them, religion does not give you a "get out of bigotry free card".
 
2014-03-03 02:03:20 PM  
But there's another possibility, in which the oft-invoked analogy between opposition to gay marriage and support for segregation in the 1960s South is pushed to its logical public-policy conclusion. In this scenario, the unwilling photographer or caterer would be treated like the proprietor of a segregated lunch counter, and face fines or lose his business

The proprietors of those segregated lunch counters?  Some of them used the same religious justifications to oppose having to interact with black people.  In some cases they even used the very same verses the bigots opposed to gay rights use today.

I've spent three decades in Southern Baptist churches.  Could someone please - please - point me to the verse in the Bible which says Christians shouldn't bake a cake or do a flower arrangement for a gay wedding?  Because I don't recall reading that anywhere.  On the other hand, I do recall Jesus associating with hookers, lepers, tax collectors, Samaritans, Romans, slaves, and about a half dozen other groups of people who were considered unclean and subhuman by the religious right of the day.

And while you're at it, can we please stop pretending that these people's objections are religiously based?  Because they aren't.  If they truly had a biblical based objection to gay marriage, then they'd also be refusing to bake cakes for weddings of divorced people or where both the bride and groom are Christians -  and they aren't.

These bigots do not get their bigotry from my Bible.  They got it from being bigoted against homosexuals.  And then when someone calls them out on it they don't want to own up to being bigots so they go hunting through the Bible to try to figure out some way to whore Jesus out as an excuse for their bigotry.
 
2014-03-03 02:06:13 PM  
It's really becoming just "Old man yells at cloud" over and over again. I'll be happy in ten years when it's just the way the world works and nobody cares.
 
2014-03-03 02:06:33 PM  
FTFA: "But now, apparently, the official line is that you bigots don't get to negotiate anymore."

That is correct. Yet he says it as if it's surprising.

We can't tell you to stop being bigots, or even to stop saying bigoted things, but you sure as hell don't get to negotiate how much bigotry you get to practice towards somebody else. The answer there is: none. What is there to negotiate?
 
2014-03-03 02:07:01 PM  
Whiny conservative playing the victim card? How original...

FWIW, I don't think that people should be compelled to provide services to anyone they don't want to (exceptions for things like housing, groceries, medical care and other 'essential' services).

If a florist wants to be openly racist, homophobic and anti-brony etc, who cares if they turn away potential customers. Someone else who is willing  to take that business will get that money instead. And, it probably will not help the reputation of the discriminating business to openly be racist/homophobic/whatever. They are only hurting themselves in the long run by doing this. Not every problem needs a law.

/I fully support gay marriage in all 50 states. I hope to Supreme Court issues a ruling to allow this on a national level.
 
2014-03-03 02:08:02 PM  

grumpfuff: Can't help but read that as Ross Douchethat.


Thank God I wasn't the only one.
 
2014-03-03 02:08:06 PM  
So bigot or not, can a private photographer be sued for refusing to work for a gay couple? Can a gay photographer be sued for refusing to work for a fundamentalist couple?
 
2014-03-03 02:11:09 PM  
"with a substantial minority of Americans, most of them religious, still committed to the older view of marriage.So what then?"

Those beliefs will probably fade off to a small minority that yells at the clouds and complains about everything just like the views on interracial marriage and women voting did.
 
2014-03-03 02:11:23 PM  

manbart: FWIW, I don't think that people should be compelled to provide services to anyone they don't want to (exceptions for things like housing, groceries, medical care and other 'essential' services).

If a florist wants to be openly racist, homophobic and anti-brony etc, who cares if they turn away potential customers. Someone else who is willing to take that business will get that money instead. And, it probably will not help the reputation of the discriminating business to openly be racist/homophobic/whatever. They are only hurting themselves in the long run by doing this. Not every problem needs a law.


It may make sense in a large city, but a small town would be a different story. What if there's only one restaurant? Flower shop? Bakery? And why the distinction for groceries, housing, etc? Those are private businesses too. Why should they be forced to compromise their religious beliefs while flower store Bob gets to say no to gay people?

Look, it's an all-or-nothing thing. Either you play by the rules that every other business has to play by, or you don't open a business. Simple as that.
 
2014-03-03 02:11:27 PM  

s2s2s2: So bigot or not, can a private photographer be sued for refusing to work for a gay couple?


Depends on the state. Some states have non-discrimination laws which cover gay couples, and some don't.

Can a gay photographer be sued for refusing to work for a fundamentalist couple?

Depends what the basis is. If its determined to be religion-based, then you can probably sue them, since most states have religious non-discrimination laws.
 
2014-03-03 02:11:43 PM  

manbart: Whiny conservative playing the victim card? How original...

FWIW, I don't think that people should be compelled to provide services to anyone they don't want to (exceptions for things like housing, groceries, medical care and other 'essential' services).

If a florist wants to be openly racist, homophobic and anti-brony etc, who cares if they turn away potential customers. Someone else who is willing  to take that business will get that money instead. And, it probably will not help the reputation of the discriminating business to openly be racist/homophobic/whatever. They are only hurting themselves in the long run by doing this. Not every problem needs a law.

/I fully support gay marriage in all 50 states. I hope to Supreme Court issues a ruling to allow this on a national level.


Thats no different from what happened in jim crow era though.  The invisable hand of the market will do two things, jack and shiat, to stop people from discriminating against groups.
 
2014-03-03 02:11:47 PM  
Social conservatives lost their opportunity to maintain their dignity long ago by opposing civil unions in place of marriage. This would have allowed them to keep marriage 'as god intended' and allowed for equal protection under the law for LBTG.

The best suggestion I heard was from a priest about a dozen years ago. Get the government out of marriage, it is a religious rite and the state should have no part in it. The government have civil unions for any and all, and the church (or synagogue or mosque) gets marriage and gets to define it any farking way it wants.
 
2014-03-03 02:12:37 PM  
BTW this is the same pinhead who blamed the Catholic church's child molestation on - wait for it - liberalism. Really.
 
2014-03-03 02:12:41 PM  

s2s2s2: So bigot or not, can a private photographer be sued for refusing to work for a gay couple? Can a gay photographer be sued for refusing to work for a fundamentalist couple?


Yes(assuming it's a state with anti-discrimination laws that cover sexuality) and yes.

You know this. We've been over this. Why are you still asking this question?
 
2014-03-03 02:12:52 PM  

Ring of Fire: "long list of topics on which Americans disagree without making a political issue out of it."

What the hell is he talking about. Aside from driving on the right hand side of the road is there anything in America that people haven't made a political issue out of. Science and facts are political issues for farks sake.


You know who else drove on the right-hand side of the road?
 
2014-03-03 02:13:03 PM  
I don't see how the Fark headline and the article are at all related, and yes I'm aware that this is the Politics tab.
It's overly emotional and full of self-pity, but by the end it seemed decent enough.
Although I have no idea who this guy is, so maybe that's it.
 
2014-03-03 02:14:20 PM  

Maturin: The best suggestion I heard was from a priest about a dozen years ago. Get the government out of marriage, it is a religious rite and the state should have no part in it. The government have civil unions for any and all, and the church (or synagogue or mosque) gets marriage and gets to define it any farking way it wants.


Wait, why does religion get to claim marriage? It existed as a way to trade and manage property well before religion got it's dirty hands on it. I think the gov't should have claim on the word 'marriage' and let religion have 'religious union'.
 
2014-03-03 02:15:04 PM  

Maturin: Social conservatives lost their opportunity to maintain their dignity long ago by opposing civil unions in place of marriage. This would have allowed them to keep marriage 'as god intended' and allowed for equal protection under the law for LBTG.

The best suggestion I heard was from a priest about a dozen years ago. Get the government out of marriage, it is a religious rite and the state should have no part in it. The government have civil unions for any and all, and the church (or synagogue or mosque) gets marriage and gets to define it any farking way it wants.


The thing is we already have the situation that priest suggests. We already have two separate groups of recognized relationships in this country. One is religious marriage (holy matrimony or whatever your religion wants to call it). The other is civil marriage. A religious group does not have to recognize all couples civilly married. The government does not have to recognize all couples religiously married.
 
2014-03-03 02:16:50 PM  
So, homophobia is fear of homosexuals. What is it called if you plain just don't like them?
 
2014-03-03 02:17:04 PM  

Wooly Bully: BTW this is the same pinhead who blamed the Catholic church's child molestation on - wait for it - liberalism. Really.


That seems to be pretty common.  Friend's dad let me know about that.  Hard core Catholic and conservative.  Everything was awesome up until the kiddy-diddling.  Then it was because the church let "liberals" be priests.  I'm sure SOME of them even were liberals.  Probably statistically similar to the general population.
 
2014-03-03 02:17:42 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Maturin: The best suggestion I heard was from a priest about a dozen years ago. Get the government out of marriage, it is a religious rite and the state should have no part in it. The government have civil unions for any and all, and the church (or synagogue or mosque) gets marriage and gets to define it any farking way it wants.

Wait, why does religion get to claim marriage? It existed as a way to trade and manage property well before religion got it's dirty hands on it. I think the gov't should have claim on the word 'marriage' and let religion have 'religious union'.


Even better, lets abolish religion
 
2014-03-03 02:17:59 PM  

Maturin: Social conservatives lost their opportunity to maintain their dignity long ago by opposing civil unions in place of marriage. This would have allowed them to keep marriage 'as god intended' and allowed for equal protection under the law for LBTG.

The best suggestion I heard was from a priest about a dozen years ago. Get the government out of marriage, it is a religious rite and the state should have no part in it. The government have civil unions for any and all, and the church (or synagogue or mosque) gets marriage and gets to define it any farking way it wants.


The priest is confusing 'Marriage' with 'Wedding'.  Marriage is a state function, the wedding is not.  That's a religious ceremony, but even then, you can have a secular wedding.

The priests just need to deal with the fact that they don't own the word, nor the union itself.
 
Displayed 50 of 423 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report