Aloha to an American hero: Daniel Inouye (1924 – 2012)

Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii has died.

Inouye was the second-longest serving senator in American history, representing the state of Hawaii in Congress for as long as there has been the state of Hawaii. Inouye was also a war hero and a recipient of the Medal of Honor.

Here, via TPM, is the citation:

SECOND LIEUTENANT DANIEL K. INOUYE, UNITED STATES ARMY, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:

Second Lieutenant Daniel K. Inouye distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in action on 21 April 1945, in the vicinity of San Terenzo, Italy. While attacking a defended ridge guarding an important road junction, Second Lieutenant Inouye skillfully directed his platoon through a hail of automatic weapon and small arms fire, in a swift enveloping movement that resulted in the capture of an artillery and mortar post and brought his men to within 40 yards of the hostile force. Emplaced in bunkers and rock formations, the enemy halted the advance with crossfire from three machine guns. With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun nest. Although wounded by a sniper’s bullet, he continued to engage other hostile positions at close range until an exploding grenade shattered his right arm. Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions. In the attack, 25 enemy soldiers were killed and eight others captured. By his gallant, aggressive tactics and by his indomitable leadership, Second Lieutenant Inouye enabled his platoon to advance through formidable resistance, and was instrumental in the capture of the ridge. Second Lieutenant Inouye’s extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the United States Army.

For a less-restrained account, see the entry on Inouye at “Badass of the Week,” which includes this detail:

When the men in his unit came to the hospital and recounted the events to Inouye, his exact words were, “No, that can’t be … you’d have to be insane to do all that.”

As a Japanese American, Inouye was classified as an “enemy alien” after Pearl Harbor, but as soon as he was allowed, he volunteered for the Army to serve in World War II. Here is a short video of Inouye discussing his enlistment in Ken Burns’ documentary “The War”:!

Think of how polarized the U.S. Senate has become. Then read this statement by the Senate’s top Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, on lifelong Democrat Inouye: “He was the kind of man, in short, that America has always been grateful to have, especially in her darkest hours, men who lead by example and who expect nothing in return.”

David Badash of The New Civil Rights Movement notes that Inouye was also an early and ardent supporter of LGBT rights. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and was a co-sponsor of ENDA. Inouye was also instrumental in passing the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Badash relays Inouye’s statement on passage of the repeal:

Finally, all brave men and women who want to put on the uniform of our great nation and serve in the armed services may do so without having to hide who they are. My only regret is that nearly 13,000 men and women were expelled from the military during the 17 years that this discriminatory policy was in place. In every war we have had men and women of different sexual orientation who have risked their lives for their country. I fought alongside gay men during World War II and many of them were killed in combat. Those men were heroes. And once again, heroes will be allowed to defend their country, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Inouye led by example, but he did expect something in return. He expected others to be granted the same opportunities he had been given, without discrimination.

Aloha, senator.

"At this point I am OK with it. If they want to look foolish to ..."

LBCF, No. 169: ‘Meta-Buck gets saved’
"To be fair, the writers probably thought they were ridiculing a custom from wimpy decadent ..."

LBCF, No. 169: ‘Meta-Buck gets saved’
"Good then you know how numbers can be manipulated. This isn't just simple math at ..."

LBCF, No. 169: ‘Meta-Buck gets saved’

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • jclor

    When he awoke to see the concerned men of his platoon hovering over him, his only comment before being carried away was to gruffly order them to return to their positions, since, as he pointed out, “nobody called off the war!”

    Inouye (and the rest of the 442nd) are long overdue for the proper Hollywood treatment.

  • Carstonio

    I’m ashamed to admit that I confused Inouye with Jim Inhofe.

  • storiteller

    A lovely tribute to a great person.  I’m glad to see how people are describing his extraordinary heroism throughout his life – not just during the war.

  • AnonaMiss

    With complete disregard for his personal safety

    I gotta admit, this made me giggle.

    Not every day that an official citation gives its subject an awestruck, admiring “You idiot…”

  • Barry_D

    We won’t see his kind again, I fear.

  • Randy Owens

    Wasn’t he also the one who gave us the quote (paraphrased from memory), “you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts”?

  • Linkmeister

     That was Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Inouye said this during Iran-Contra:

     “[There exists] a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own
    Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own
    ideas of the national interest, free from all checks and balances, and
    free from the law itself.”

    The Senator despised Ollie North and didn’t hide it much.

  • Randy Owens

    Ah, must be the shared letters in the last names.  I’m easily thrown off by that kind of thing.  Thanks for clearing that up.

  • dedelste

    Inouye was a hero of mine for a long time,
    but I’ve also known for a shorter time that there were sexual
    “harassment” charges against him. 
    Upon looking further, at least one seems to be rape:,2701402
    .  Also see
    (may be behind paywall).  I’m troubled
    that this part of his story seems to have been ignored in all the laudatory

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    A hardcore gay supporter in his late eighties. That puts the whole “generational divide” view into perspective. As do I, being a pro-FRC, pro-AFA, zealously anti-SPLC and anti-American Psycho Association college student.

  • The_L1985

    Hey, I used to be one of those!

    Then I started seeing things and people outside of Coffee County, AL.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    I am from England, you regionalist bigot. Anti-South bigotry ain’t cool.

  • The_L1985

    …I am from Coffee County, genius.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    Sorry about that. It is just I have seen many a pro-lesbigay liebigot (lying liberal bigot) assume that those who disagree with them on marriage, sexual morality or other related issues must be from the south/MS/AL- or even that they are American when they are British or Canadian or from another country stereotyped as more liberal. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    How about you take your insults and your heterosexism and your bullshit and you march them straight back to wherever the fuck had the misfortune to spawn you. This blog and its comment threads are a place where it is safe and accepted to be queer, and people who want queer folk to be neither safe nor accepted (and given your use of ‘pro-lesbigay liebigot’ to describe someone who thinks queer folk deserve basic human rights, I am confident that you are such a person) are not welcome here.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    pro-lesbigay liebigot= a person who uses lies, offensive framing and hateful language in the service of LGBT rights activism. e.g. ACT UP, Queer Nation, the concocters of the 10% “statistic”, the people who assume a person’s religion has been acquired hereditarily, the lot who use filthy language referring to homosexual sex acts when speaking to opponents of same-sex marriage and tell them that they are “gay” and they need to “come out”, gays who shout hate speech at the Pope and Christian leaders and find it acceptable to call them nasty names and blaming them for things which aren’t their fault, I have even seen white guys compare man-man or woman-woman marriage to INTERRACIAL marriage IN FRONT OF people of colour who they know quite well do not accept this outrageous comparison.

    Only an insensitive and offensive minority of gay rights activists are what I would call pro-lesbigay liebigots. It is not an umbrella term I use for “anyone who disagrees with me on the gay issue”.

    Regardless of the rights and wrongs of being allowed to do so, It is NOT a recognised *human right* to marry “who you LOVE” without regard for the man/woman partnership- the international authorities who made marriage a right did so specifically with mother and father families in mind, primarily for the benefit of children in future generations, NOT just undifferentiated love. Why should romance be a right? If the word marriage is changing its legal meaning it does not necessarily fit into a human rights framework any more; the UN and the international human rights establishment have never said it’s a violation for a country to not have same-sex marriages.  

  • Lori


    I have even seen white guys compare man-man or woman-woman marriage to
    INTERRACIAL marriage IN FRONT OF people of colour who they know quite
    well do not accept this outrageous comparison.  

    I have seen white guys deny the comparison of marriage equality for same sex couples to legal interracial marriage IN FRONT OF people of color who do accept this completely logical comparison.

    Seriously, stop trying to act like you’re standing up for people of color. It’s embarressing.

    I’m not even going to bother with all your crap about marriage being for the children. You know that what you’re saying is not true. If you have reached college age you certainly know at least one married couple who is not able to have children and/or has absolutely no interest in having children. The marriages of couples who are infertile or childless by choice do not threaten the foundations of society. Allowing same sex couples, many of whom do have children, to have the legal protections and responsibilities to which they are entitled does not threaten it either.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    Yes, I am defending POC. They are on average more pro-traditional marriage than white folk, according to the voting on the issue, and I don’t like seeing people race-bait or slander the good name of the Civil Rights movement by using the phrase to describe trying to force everyone to approve of homosexuality. I would never have *thought* to bring race up in a gay issue- no, it was the other side who did that. Usually it’s bigoted right-wingers who play the race card, but not here.

  • The_L1985

    Actual scientific studies differ on how much of the population is gay.  Statistics have ranged from 2%-20%.  The 10% is an average.

    ” I have even seen white guys compare man-man or woman-woman marriage to INTERRACIAL marriage IN FRONT OF people of colour ”  That’s because until 1967, many states in the US used identical language (“abomination,” “God designed marriage to only be between people of the same race”, etc.) to prohibit interracial marriage.  There are black people advocating for LGBT equality for this very reason–perhaps you simply have not encountered any, or did not know that some of the individuals you encountered online were black.

    “It is NOT a recognised *human right* to marry “who you LOVE””  So should it go back to being a business transaction between a woman’s father and her husband, with the newly-married couple moving in with the husband’s parents and extended family?  That’s certainly a much older and longer-lived tradition than the current nuclear-family, which only dates back to the 1950’s.

    Prior to state constitutions being amended in the 1990’s, the official legal definition of marriage in the US was “a union between two consenting adults who are not closely related by blood.”  (How closely was left up to individual states–some states allow first cousins to marry, but most do not.)  It wasn’t until gay couples started applying for marriage licenses in the 80’s and 90’s that so many states amended their constitutions to specifically include the phrase “one man and one woman.”

    So it really does depend on what you mean by traditional marriage:

    – The legal definition?

    – The nuclear-family model that has been in place since the 1950’s?

    – The business-transaction model of the arranged marriage, which has existed in most of the world, Christian and otherwise, for millennia?

    – The polygamous marriages described in the Bible?  (See also:  Jacob, Rachel, and Leah; Gideon and his wives; David and his wives other than Bathsheba; Solomon with his 300 wives and 700 concubines.  None of these marriages were ever described as immoral in the Bible–David’s marriage to Bathsheba was wrong because he killed her husband to have her.  The New Testament is completely silent on the issue of polygamy.)

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    20%? :O Even most gay activists admit the 1 in 10 figure was based on very loose definitions- some surveys ask if a person has ever had a homosexual experience, which can get up to 37% if you include any sort of activity (Kinsey Institute) and could well be 10% if you count full sex with an adult of the same sex (however that would be defined.) If you are talking about those who are firmly, exclusively attracted to the same sex  studies by the leading professional associations put the figure at closer to 3 per cent.

    With respect to race and marriage: I am perfectly aware of the NAACP’s approval of what they referred to as marriage “equality”, David Badash at the New Civil Rights Movement and others. It has also not escaped me that at the polls, black voters in the US are least likely to approve of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, with Latinos also being less supportive than whites- so the “figureheads” do NOT represent populations of color, but the Democratic Party which has been able to exploit this issue without fear of losing their votes because the GOP have been so reactionary of late on racial issues. When the opposition is talking SB-1070, “self-deportation” and coddling Minutemen and Teabaggers with “white slavery” signs they don’t HAVE to be racially sensitive to get the minority vote, just less openly racist than Birther Trump and co. Thus I have read many testimonies of people angry that the civil rights movement is being co-opted, whether explicitly as by Badash’ site, or implicitly with references to Loving-Virginia and 1967 being made by prominent, white, privileged liberals when they have nothing to do with the debate over homosexuality and marriage.

    By traditional marriage, I refer to the marriage in 1 Corinthians 7- each wife having one husband and each husband having one wife, without any bigoted racial barriers in the way. The cultural context there is that there was “much sexual immorality” among them. In the 21st century AD, with detritus of the sexual revolution washing over the Church in waves, the reasoning for monogamous marriage as a spiritual Palladium against licentiousness applies  !  I think we can see from the creation account in Genesis and the poetic literature of the OT that God desires marriage to be a loving bond between man and wife, but given man’s fallen condition, it is not surprising that less noble rationales for marriage have predominated over an expansive sweep of history.

  • The_L1985

     Genesis 2 also uses the language of one man and one wife, but was first recorded in a time when it was not considered in any way morally wrong for a man to have as many wives as he could afford.  The fact that 1 Corinthians 7, in English translations, uses the singular form of the words “husband” and “wife” therefore doesn’t necessarily say anything about whether polygamy is allowed or not.

    One must also remember that in the Middle East, marriages were an arranged business transaction between a woman’s father and her prospective husband.  The husband essentially “bought” the wife and was considered to own her; she had no rights whatsoever, and had to obey him to the same extent that servants and slaves had to obey their masters.  Love was a luxury that might hopefully come after the marriage.

    Paul was being quite radical by stating that love should become the norm within marriages–he’s still not saying you should marry for love, the way we do today, but he is implying that if love hasn’t developed within your marriage, something is wrong and you need to cultivate it.  AFAIK, Paul never said anything against the arranged-marriage customs of the time.  It’s only been a couple centuries that both spouses have been allowed to choose each other freely.

  • Kiba

    Uhm maybe you should read this

    The author does a very good job pointing out how the bans against interracial marriage and the bans against same-sex marriage mirror each other. 

    I have had the unpleasant task of immersing myself in 
    this disturbing jurisprudence. The arguments made in these cases are 
    strikingly similar to arguments made today against same-sex marriage. 
    These arguments include religion and natural law, procreation, concern for 
    the children, deference to the legislature, and the slippery-slope argument (that is, allowing interracial marriage will lead to polygamy and incest).
    The ultimate rejection of all these arguments in the interracial marriage 
    context may speak to their long-term viability in the same-sex marriage 

    As for not making the comparison between the two issues:

    The “sameness” argument, however, should be used in court,
    regardless of its impact on relations between communities. Courts operate 
    by stare decisis. Like cases should be decided alike; precedent binds. I have 
    tried to show here how attempts to distinguish the bans on interracial 
    marriage from the current debate fail. The same arguments were made then 
    as are made now. Their descent from renown to ignominy in the interracial 
    marriage context should cast some doubt on, or at least put in perspective, 
    their relative merits in the same-sex marriage context. I  agree with 
    Professor Adele Morrison’s take on the use of Loving:  

    Groups may disagree about the contexts in which  Loving’s
    holdings may apply or may argue that it is being misinterpreted, 
    or even misused. However, to say that Loving cannot be used at 
    all because one group disagrees with the usage by another, is 
    counter to the very purpose of legal precedents and reasoning by 

    You really should read the whole thing though.

    And if your really are so gung-ho on the teachings of Jesus why is it you, and people like you, always seem to ignore the “judge not, lest ye be judged” part?

    As for the for the rest of your bible bile: Who died and made you the sole arbiter of The Truth? There are plenty of Christian denominations out there that disagree with you on the subject. That say god has no problems with same-sex marriage or QUILTBAG people. Why should the law recognize your view and not theirs? And what about atheists and non-Christians? Why should they be forced to adhere to your view of “traditional” marriage? If you are not trying to enact your particular religious views into law then why do you care if gay people are getting married? It’s a civil marriage and impacts you not at all. Really, it doesn’t. Your denomination is still perfectly free to deny a religious marriage ceremony to anyone. 

    And for the record words do hurt. They hurt you when people “spew hate” at you for your views and yours hurt others when you do the same. You can dress it up and call it “telling the truth about god” all you want but that doesn’t change the fact.

  • The_L1985

     1. Everyone deserves to be treated with basic human dignity and respect, including gay people.  This is the liberal position, pretty much verbatim.  How is this a lie?

    2. This is my position on sexual morality:

         A.  You must only have sex with people who want to have sex with you, in the manner that you want to have sex with them, at the same time that you want to have sex with them.  If any of those conditions are not met, then you should not have sex with that person, in that way, right now, or you are doing something very wrong.

         B.  You must not have sex that breaks marital vows, be they your own or somebody else’s.  (Open marriages are a bit too complicated of a subject to discuss here, but it’s generally good policy to avoid having sex with married people if there is even the slightest bit of doubt.)

         C.  If anything unexpected results from the sex, be it good or bad (emotional entanglements, pregnancy, disease), you must take responsibility in whatever way is warranted by the situation, your feelings for the other person, and the non-sexual aspects of your moral code and theirs.

    Please explain to me how having this position makes me bigoted, because I’m not following that one either.

    3.  Thank you for reminding me that not all Brits are taught
    manners.  Clearly the stereotype of the polite,
    careful English person is a gross oversimplification.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    I refer to liberals as bigoted insofar as many have spewed hate at me for promoting traditional sexual morality (abstinence until a man/woman marriage, a chaste life for people with same-sex attraction). Also for assuming lots of things about me based on my views: that I must be “past the age at which one has children” on one anonymous forum (so only 60+ year olds support conservative Christian morality, yeah riiight); that I must have been born and brought up in a family with such views (no no no, both my parents were cosmopolitan, secular, pro-choice supporters of loose sexual standards); that I am a fundamentalist (am not, whether a theological fundamentalist or a social fundamentalist); that I am secretly homosexual (BULL SHIT) and so on.

    Not all liberals are bigots, of course- just like some conservatives are bigots

    And that sexual morality position is one which I reject outright as one which panders to unrestrained lust and promiscuity, grieving our Maker- and it grieves Him whether OR NOT the person committing the sexual sin believes in Jesus. I have a right to freedom of conscience, which means I do not have to support the sexual revolution just because I was born into a time period after it had occurred. My belief is that the New Testament Scripture, not the culture of the time, decides what is sexually acceptable in general (though there are some things that can vary between cultures and in different circumstances, such as the proper minimum age for a youth to marry, I consider the basic outline to be both permanent and universal and those with different views to be objectively wrong on that particular issue.)


  • EllieMurasaki

    I refer to liberals as bigoted insofar as many have spewed hate at me for promoting traditional sexual morality (abstinence until a man/woman marriage, a chaste life for people with same-sex attraction).

    You are spewing hate at me simply by saying that sentence.

  • The_L1985

    He doesn’t understand that you can promote traditional sexual morality without requiring it, nor that people don’t have to take every piece of advice that they hear.

    I’m guessing that Jonathan may have had a bad experience with his liberal parents that sent him a bit farther than usual in the opposite direction.  I can’t say for sure, though, with the limited amount of information  I have on the fellow.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    Liberal parents were the start of it. The real catalyst? I had concerns about my sexual development in early adolescence (and no, they didn’t include any sort of homoerotic fantasies, not that it’s anyone’s business but there) and the senior management at my school allowed me to describe my concerns to them without informing anyone else- including my parents. This is described by its extremist supporters as “confidential pastoral care”, and by pro-family groups as an affront to parents and interfering teachers going into entirely inappropriate territory. 

    A few years later, having became a born-again Christian (though not attending church due to not wanting family issues) I realised this was a massive strike against parents’ basic right to know what their children were doing, their standards, family values etc. I challenged the “approachable” far-left senior leadership to which they responded with a lot of complex language and officialese but in short, they were radically opposed to parental rights legislation, as well as being deeply pro-choice, pro-gay and pro-free-love. They were very surprised I was not in line with their… umm, metropolitan expansivity- on a lot of issues as well as the family ones. It was the year of the major ethical debates in religious studies class, the teacher was an atheist Wiccan who was almost as liberal as the principal and her deputy, I was 15 and regarded as the #1 student in the school on an academic basis- and the few people who respected me in a very difficult environment were the fellow profamily Christians. We worked together on a series of presentations over six months- abortion, stem cells, euthanasia, creation/evolution, existence of God, absolute morality and family values. ( I no longer deny biological evolution) It was then, researching for those topics, that I got into the world of FRC, AFA, Focus on the Family, etc.- I preferred the American organisations because they had more developed and informative web pages than the smaller UK equivalents and they seemed to be more confident in their worldview, perhaps not apprehensive due to being such a small minority as they are over here. We put up a spirited defense against the atheist/humanist and liberal camp and the obvious bias of the teacher- there were two sides of about eight and the remaining 12 of us in the class somewhere in between. We won the abortion debate and a couple of the others were called draws.

    Since then, I have been a pro-life pro-family Christian opposed to abortion, the “family diversity” model, the idea that sex outside of marriage is okay just because two people consent to it [and yes, if your sexual worldview is based on “consent makes sex OK”, that IS pandering to lust and fornication- the moment you deny that sex should be reserved for the sacramental partnership between man and wife, you are doing so to some extent. To say that “you can choose to be abstinent” is not sufficient to make it a moral position if you think it’s just a matter of personal choice like choosing to abstain from eating an omelette for breakfast.]

    With regard to the First Amendment and freedom of conscience- yes, other people have the legal right to deny Christ without facing secular punishment, unlike in a theocracy, and under the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment they also have the legal right to consensual sex within the bounds of public decency and age of consent laws. That is how it should be. I don’t want the government to punish people for sexual sin, or to try to define what is Christian morality- as they could get it wrong. Separating church and state on the whole is not a bad idea. The fact that I take religious right moral views does not mean that I am a theocrat- what I would say is that sexual morality is dependent on more than personal predilection or cultural norms (as was mentioned, many cultures have sanctioned male sexual violence against women based on the idea of male supremacy- this does not mean it is or was ever right in God’s eyes) and so positions which approve of extramarital sex are objectively morally wrong based on God’s standards, and those who take them will have to answer to God as shall all of us. I make no request for secular laws to enforce this.  

  • The_L1985

    FRC, AFA, and FotF have all supported laws in Uguanda that would make merely having a homosexual attraction punishable by death.  At one point, there was a charge included in the proposed Uguandan law for “conspiracy to commit homosexuality,” which basically meant “I know that somebody is gay and haven’t reported them to the authorities to be killed”–the punishment for this was also death.  One cannot possibly hate a group of people any more than wanting to deliberately wipe them off the face of the earth.  Your support of organizations that are trying to do such a horrible thing to their fellow human beings is why people refer to you as hateful.

    My worldview is that consent is necessary but not sufficient.  I am sorry that I did not make this absolutely clear.  I also believe that, for some people, abstinence is morally significant.  You are one of those people, and you are perfectly within your rights to do what you believe to be morally right, and avoid things that you perceive as sinful.

    By the way, I was a conservative Catholic in high school.  At the time, I held all the positions that you do, PLUS a belief in young-earth creationism.  One of my teachers was also a liberal Neopagan (maybe Wiccan, I don’t know), and she and all my other (probably also liberal) teachers treated me with the same respect due to any other teenager.  “Respect” does not equate to “I agree with everything you say.”

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    This is a slander. “Let me be absolutely clear. I do not support the proposed anti-homosexuality law as written. It does not emphasize rehabilitation over punishment and the punishment that it calls for is unacceptably harsh. However, if the offending sections were sufficiently modified, the proposed law would represent an encouraging step in the right direction”- Scott Lively. Lively is one of the most extreme members of the Religious Right movement.
    FRC under Tony Perkins, Peter Sprigg and previously Gary Bauer, and FotF under Daly (who is more moderate than Dobson) are certainly not MORE inclined toward punishing gay people than an ideologue like Lively who took the time to write “The Pink Swastika”. AFA has of late been associated with Bryan Fischer, who I dislike for his outrageous remarks- the Wildmons were more sensitive and true to the Biblical concept of speaking the truth in love, gracefully. Yet although I do not like the rhetoric, I agree with their positions on abortion, marriage, religious liberty, euthanasia, am closer to them than liberals on sex education and parental rights, and find it good that such organisations exist to promote the traditional moral view on these matters.They may have helped in the production of the Ugandan anti-gay law but only because they agreed with the concept of discouraging homosexuality; their statements make it clear they do not support execution or other cruel punishment of people for gay sex. I do not support *any* legal punishment, nor do most of the few dozen pro-family movement members (mainly US, a few over here) I speak to online.There are three components to the religious right AFAIK, and not being extremist I do not support either #1 or #2:1)Reconstructionism, usually within hardcore Calvinist circles, which denies that neutral law is possible and promotes going back to Old Testament laws and ways of living, including the use of the death penalty for homosexuality. Also generally hates any form of taxation or government licensing of medicine, education, etc. The Chalcedon Institute, Theonomy scholars, and elements in Patriarch magazine, RenewAmerica, Vision Forum, etc.- I cannot find any good whatsoever in this theology. This is the smallest wing of the RR by far and the ONLY one which would genuinely support executing people for consenting adult gay sex. 2)Fundamentalism, groups such as Citizens for Excellence in Education, Operation Save America and the Constitution Party. These are the shock troops who want the public schools closed down, a Puritanical explicitly Christian government, criminal laws against fornication, sodomy, birth control, most modern films and television programmes, sometimes alcohol prohibition, etc. while not supporting the idea of Old Testament being applicable to Christians, or the use of the death penalty outside of murder and other crimes accepted by modern secular standards as heinous. They are sympathetic to ideas like quiverfull, OT-style patriarchy (though by using NT scriptures as proof texts out of context), severe corporal punishment from a young age until age 18,  and attending only extremely conservative Christian colleges or seminaries; frequently, they find education of any sort to be “worldly” and a path to Satan. I find these ideas to reflect an inappropriate commingling of church and state plus a very narrow and vengeful flavour of Christianity which is dangerous for women and children. 3)Conservatism, the larger, mainstream orgs supported by politicians who can be- and have been-  elected to office. CWFA, Howard Center, National Right to Life, Live Action, FotF, the Ethics and Public Policy arm of the SBC, the mainstream Catholic position, National Association of Evangelicals, First Things, etc. The group who basically want a return to a less free-and-easy sexual morality as the social norm; children taught abstinence is the safest way; right to life for the unborn, so no abortion-on-demand; preserving the man/woman definition of marriage and the nuclear family; possibly outlawing hardcore pornography as consistent with court decisions that obscenity is not protected speech, but not banning “indecency” or “blasphemy” like the two groups above would do; they talk of a constitutional school prayer or personhood amendment to rev up the base, but most don’t believe deep down in going that far. They know both of these are politically nigh on impossible, and would genuinely be happy with school vouchers that can be used for religious schools should parents wish (as happens in Europe, in the most liberal countries in the world) and overturning Roe so each state could set its own abortion policy unfettered by federal mandate. Many pro-choicers agree that Roe is bad law and would prefer if it was a state issue on constitutional grounds, though they personally support abortion being legal in all 50 states. This is the sort of ground that I am in, and I do not envy the position of those who subscribe to #1 or #2 above. So there is a very clear distance between me, and mainstream religious conservatives, and those who support killing the gays. Don’t try to blur it.WRT abstinence- I don’t believe that obeying God on sexual matters can be conditioned on personal opinion any more than obeying God on worship can. I.E. I think it’s objectively wrong for a person to worship an idol, regardless of whether or not their personal worldview led them to that conclusion. As I have explained, I believe sexual morality is absolute to this extent, but do not believe in using civil law to enforce it- either on worship or on consensual sex.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Oh, you’re one of the ones who says “I don’t hate you! How can you accuse me of hating you? I just want to deny you the ability to do things I can do, and in cases like Savita Halappanavar I want to deny you your lives, but look how NICE I am about it! I’m not hateful at all! Let’s keep the discussion on how not hateful I am, rather than on the ways I am not-hatefully hurting you!”

    No. That is bullshit, and that is unacceptable, and the key point here is and remains that you do not get to decide what anyone other than you does with their uterus or who anyone other than you is permitted to (consensually) sex or whether anyone other than you should be treated with the full rights and respect due a human being, rights and respect that you, heterocis white dude, take for granted.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    You might consider it unacceptable. I do not care what you think, given that you disrespect not only my position but God’s Word. Anyone who writes God with a small “g” and finds it “unacceptable” for people to tell them the fact that sodomy is immoral does not deserve my respect.

    We shall see who’s right on Judgment Day.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Lucky you there isn’t going to be a Judgment Day. Nor any deity to judge you. Nor is or will there be a hell. Which is a damn shame, because I must confess the wholly unethical desire for you to feel the pain you and your like inflict.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Oh, by the way: ‘god’ is not a proper name, it’s the common noun describing a male divine entity, and it rather insults people who believe in gods who aren’t the Christian one to claim the word as a proper noun describing that deity alone.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    Sorry, I’m back. I am greeted by a pathetic piece of secular humanist godlessness, on a Christian blog. What a nice surprise!

    God is the proper name of Jehovah, Who is Father, Son and Spirit. As He is the only God who exists (I am not the postmodern my-truth/your-truth type, there’s one Sovereign Lord who reigns over all of creation) it is accurate to capitalize His name even if it offends idolaters. Though sensitivity is desirable and in general a good, the Gospel can offend and this is not a reason to water it down.

    I do not wish to inflict pain on anyone so take that back now, you liar. I wish for everyone to be saved. I am a Christian, not a sadist. And how DARE you say “lucky you” to me then make out that I will not live for eternity with the Lord in Heaven. Because I will, and that is the end of the matter. All the atheo-activism and super–secularist shenanigans in the world won’t change that reality. The same principle applies to who preach the falsehood of judgmentless, Earth-only, physical-only life (and no, it’s not “science”, there are many scientists who are born again, aware of Truth and thus reject Godlessness while accepting modern science.)  

    I am a supernaturalist, theist person who respects and fears the Lord, who is not “made-up”, not “imaginary” and does not live in the “sky” (so God damn the lying terms “sky fairy”, “sky daddy”, “sky buddy”, etc.) One day you may recognise the error of your ways. I sincerely hope you do, as I am concerned for you- the loving concern of a human being.

  • EllieMurasaki

    How dare you say I am wrong for being who and what I am–who and what, if your god exists in the manner you claim, your god made me?

    I thought you were taking your bigotry somewhere the fuck else.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    Down with the “your-god” talk. It is offensive enough to use a small “g” without trying to relativise the Absolute with a personal pronoun. God is not personal to me- He is God of ALL.

  • EllieMurasaki

    God of all Christians I’ll buy, but god of all people, even those who are certain he doesn’t exist and who would (if your interpretation of him is correct) vehemently oppose him if he did? Yeah, pull the other one.

    I thought you were taking your bigotry somewhere the fuck else.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    He does exist over ALL PEOPLE, in all times, in all cultures, no matter what their personal belief…  because He is the Supreme Being who rules the Universe.
    I am an absolutist and an exclusivist. For me to say any less than this is to deny the Faith.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I am an atheist. If I ever get religion, it’ll probably be Reform Judaism (you know, the one where the rabbi and her wife are both pregnant) or Hellenic Reconstructionism (remind me to write a post for the rest of y’all on how the Greek deities’ sexuality might be described in modern terms–hint, the wrong-like-a-wrong-thing bit about Zeus fucking Ganymede is the bit where we have no reason to believe Ganymede consented, not the bit where they both have penises).

    Whether I get religion or not, I will deny your faith to my dying day.
    Possibly not the day after, but in the wildly unlikely event that your god exists as you describe, I plan to shout to anyone who might possibly hear me that your god is unjust and merciless and deserving of nothing save spit in the face. It won’t save me from eternal torture, but repenting of all my ‘sins’ and eternally proclaiming my devotion to him wouldn’t do that either and would destroy my integrity.

    I like my integrity. I plan to keep it. One of the ways in which I am keeping it is by showing no respect to a hypotheticodeity whose worshippers are in his name showing no respect to me.

    I thought you were taking your bigotry somewhere the fuck else.

  • P J Evans

     He took it to a different thread, I think, douchebeck that he is….

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    Still using that disgusting language (“your god”, “bigotry”) and you will have to accept God’s truth at the end of time like everyone else. Until then, your hate of Christianity is far worse than my mere moral disapproval (not hate) of you.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I don’t hate Christianity. How could I? There are plenty of lovely people who happen to be Christian and whose lovely-people-ness springs from understanding Christianity as a source of love, not (as you clearly understand it) as a source of reasons to morally disapprove of people.
    nb: morally disapproving of someone who has no choice about being the thing you morally disapprove of is the same thing as hating them.

    Anyway, you started this by accusing me of being a “lesbigay liebigot”, so you can’t possibly object to the word ‘bigot’, and how about you take your bigotry somewhere the fuck else like you’ve promised to about five times now.

  • Ross

     You know what, I do believe that there is one God who is God of all and whose will is for all people.

    And you do not speak for Him. You know how I can tell? Because you presume to, you hateful little man.

  • Dave

    You are a mortal being with a mortal mind, and your understanding is finite and bounded. You do not know what the Absolute is or is not. Heck, you don’t even know what color socks I’m wearing. Your conception of God is not an aspect of God, any more than your conception of Alabama is an aspect of Alabama. As evidence, I submit that your conception of God may change (as it no doubt has over your life, as I doubt that you had your current conception when you were born), and God is not changed thereby.

    No, your conception of God is a personal aspect of you, and it does not become less so when you use all capital letters to deny it.

    Up with language that encourages people to remember that, including “your god.”

    If you find it offensive, I invite you to think more carefully about what you are trying to defend, and why.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    Wrong. God is NOT a personal thing, I *DO* know the Absolute because Holy Scripture tells me so, and I will continue to passionately hate the use of personal pronouns that suggest that I am speaking of a mere thing in my head, rather than the Supreme Being Who rules over all.

  • Dave

     You’re mistaken. You can be as passionate as you like, though… go to town.

  • Ross

    Kevin, would you like this one?


    “God” is not the proper name of the god of Abraham. The use of “God” as a proper noun stems from a tradition of deliberately substituting something which is explicitly not His proper name, specifically so that you avoid committing the sacrilege of saying His proper name. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yes, that. ‘Jehovah’ isn’t his proper name either. I believe it’s the German transliteration of yodh-he-waw-he, a more accurate transliteration being ‘Yahweh’, which is also not his proper name (though I understand Jews treat those four Hebrew letters as such, so that when they encounter the word in reading the Torah aloud they substitute ‘Elohim’ or ‘the Lord’ or some such; ditto ‘God’, hence the convention of writing ‘G-d’), because the tradition of not using his proper name is so old that we don’t have any record of what the name actually is.

  • Dave

    The Old Testament uses “יהוה” to refer to the deity. Whether that’s a proper name or not, I can’t say, but (as you say) it is considered one by Jewish tradition. Like all Old Testament Hebrew text, it has no written vowels, and there is no convention about what the vowels are supposed to be; in Jewish tradition the proper pronunciation was  conveyed by one High Priest to the next during the time of the Temple and is lost while the Jews are in exile. When Orthodox Jews encounter “יהוה” in liturgical context we pronounce it “adonoy,” the theory being that we would not wish to accidentally utter the true name of the deity. (Which according to Hebrew phonetic rules might be “yahveh” or “y’hovah” or “yoveh” or “yevoh” or various other possibilities.) But it is considered culturally inappropriate to use “adonoy” outside of such a context, so we generally say “Hashem” (“the name”) instead, or sometimes “Adoshem” when scansion matters.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I had the general idea close enough, at least, yes?

  • Dave

    I thought perhaps you or others might be interested in additional details.

  • EllieMurasaki

    You thought right, I just, I don’t know, wanted reassurance I didn’t fuck up, I guess.

  • Dave

     You didn’t fuck up.

  • Madhabmatics

     yeah man two gay people wanting to get hitched 2000 miles away from you is totally the same as a guy beating you up and calling God a “sky fairy”

    it’s the exact same thing

    that’s a great analogy dogg

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    You are, in your usual bigoted fashion, assuming I am hetero. I could be one of the many homosexually inclined people who have decided to reject their inclinations to sin and lead a pure life, and understand that obeying the God Who loved us so much He shed His blood for us as a propitiation is more important than fulfilling on’es sexual lust. Oh, and you’re still race-baiting. Find a racist to do that with, given that I am committed to the equality of human beings of all “races” (it being an oppressive construct in the first place) and aware of my white privilege, unlike those who I mentioned as offending people of color with their Loving-Virginia/same-sex marriage comparisons. If it is necessary to use this argument to win the court case, because they are the same legal principle, then do it IN COURT. Being insensitive enough to spout off about it in front of Muslim Asians and Pentecostal/Charismatic blacks who are deeply anti-homosexual practice in a college classroom is not the same thing, and I will continue to call out such bigotry. Now it’s time to end this discussion.

  • EllieMurasaki

    You are, in your usual bigoted fashion, assuming I am hetero.

    Didn’t you just say upthread that we shouldn’t think you’re gay on account of you’re not? Assuming you’re not bisexual or asexual, since those are also part of queer, that rather limits our options.

    Prop 8’s getting amicus briefs filed at the Supreme Court. I believe the California decision cites Loving v Virginia. I know for a fact, since I just saw it on Prop 8 Trial Tracker a little while ago, that the best argument the amicus briefs have presented in favor of restricting marriage to one-penis-one-vagina is that that permits the possibility of unplanned offspring. I about died laughing.

    Oh, you want to take your bigotry somewhere the fuck else? Fine by me.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    I said “well use it in court if you think it’s a winning argument- just don’t be insensitive enough to use it in front of POC in everyday social interaction, like I’ve heard people do.”  If the justices decide to bring Loving into it , that just shows their disregard for basic moral differences.

    I was about to leave, but decided to respond to the latest round of hate.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Nobody hates you. We hate the things you say that hurt us. It’s like ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’, except that the things you say that prove you hate us (things like ‘gay sex is immoral, even for those who are only capable of feeling sexual attraction towards members of the same sex’) hurt us, and the things you claim are sinful (things like gay sex between consenting adults) hurt no one, particularly not you.

    I should probably mention that I’ve heard the ‘gay marriage should be legal under Loving v Virginia’ argument advanced by people of color. Somehow I don’t think its use offends them.

    I thought you were taking your bigotry somewhere the fuck else.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    I do NOT hate you. I *DO* believe sodomy and lesbianism are sinful acts. I do NOT believe an act is morally acceptable just because it harms nobody, as a theist; I believe it must also obey God’s moral law- which sodomy and lesbian sexual acts violate, and thus they are morally wrong.
    It is NOT hate to disagree with a “sex for everyone” position. God approves of self-denial for some people. If you don’t accept that, it’s your problem, not His. And He is real. You are wrong, also anyone who throws personalistic language at Christians (“your god”) will be punished on the last Day if they fail to repent. That includes the people at Daily Kos who wrote an anti-focus-on-the-family post referring to the one Lord, as worshipped by Dobson and co, as “their god” rather than “God”.
    And I told you that I am aware of Black people and other POC who believe L-V1967 IS relevant to same sex marriage, but that I am also aware of many who find the comparison along with the use of terms like civil rights and separate but equal extremely offensive and morally wrong, such as the ones I met in college.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I do NOT hate you. I *DO* believe sodomy and lesbianism are sinful acts.

    Contradiction in terms.

    I thought you were taking your bigotry somewhere the fuck else.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    No, it is NOT a contradiction-in-terms. People like you make me want to throw up.

  • EllieMurasaki

    ‘People who are solely attracted to members of the same sex are not capable of having sin-free sex’ is not a morally neutral or morally laudable statement.

    I thought you were taking your bigotry somewhere the fuck else.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    It IS  a morally laudable statement. You either have sex with someone you are not attracted to, you are celibate, or you sin. God does not give special snowflake passes to people like you just because they deny His Word.

  • EllieMurasaki

    It is a harmful statement to make and an even more harmful statement to enforce. Unless you can prove–not assert, not cite an assertion in a book you regard as authoritative and we don’t, PROVE–some benefit from making it and some greater benefit from enforcing it, the harm of making or enforcing the statement outweighs the good that comes from so doing, which makes it immoral to make the statement and more so to enforce it.

    Given the suicide rate among queer teens who’ve been gaslighted into believing that the statement is true, this benefit you need to prove the existence of in order to have a moral case for making that statement, it had better be a doozy.

  • P J Evans

     FOAD. Please. (Your god is a monster and hates the world.)

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    God, Who is Infinite, is NOT a monster. People who think a personal pronoun/ lower-case-g description of Him is acceptable are the problem, not the Lord.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Monster. Noun. A terrifying and dangerous creature, or an extremely cruel person, or a bunch of other definitions which don’t apply but who cares because your god is accurately described by those two individually or in combination.

    Source of all evil. Noun phrase. Somebody who disagrees with Jonathan Kuperberg, even on such a minor point as whether to capitalize a midsentence common noun.

    I thought you were taking your bigotry somewhere the fuck else.

  • Dave

    (shrug) Honestly, you’re free to hate me if you want. Or to not hate me, if you prefer.

    Also, you’re free to consider my sex life with my husband sinful, or morally wrong, or a violation of God’s moral law, or as incurring God’s disapproval. And you’re free to talk as much as you want about how sinful, morally wrong, and God-disapproved my marriage is.

    All of those are civil rights and you are entitled to them, just as I’m entitled to hate you or not, and entitled to consider your behavior sinful, or morally wrong, or a violation of God’s moral law, or as incurring God’s disapproval, or consider you prejudiced and petty-minded.

    Saying the stuff you say hurts my feelings, alienates me, angers me, upsets me, insults me… but I assume you already knew that, and either you just don’t care or you think there’s a greater good being served that justifies you saying it anyway. I think you’re callous in the first case and mistaken in the second, but regardless, you have the right to say all that hurtful stuff and I endorse that right, though I’d prefer it if you exercised it elsewhere.
    OTOH, if you seek to align civil law with your vision of God’s moral law in such a way as to deny us equal protection under civil law, you become my political opponent and I will act accordingly.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    I am clear that I don’t hate you. I consider your “husband” to be no such thing in the Lord’s eyes, hence I will use scare quotes unless I am writing an official document where only the definition specified by the laws of the land is admissible. When I write otherwise, I use God’s definitions (the one God, absolutely not “my god”), hence same-sex “marriage”, etc.  Many pro-family sites follow this practice.

  • Dave

    You’re free to disapprove of my behavior, much as I disapprove of yours.

    Ellie isn’t an idiot.

    If you insist on insulting us, I will eventually feel obligated to return the favor. I would prefer not to, though; I don’t think it’s a helpful mode of interaction.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Eh, I kept responding to him, which is evidence that on that count he’s right.

    I’m done, anyway. Better things to do with my time. Gonna leave him with a poem, though: “An Indian Upon God”, WB Yeats.

    I passed along the water’s edge below the humid trees,
    My spirit rocked in evening light, the rushes round my knees,
    My spirit rocked in sleep and sighs; and saw the moorfowl pace
    All dripping on a grassy slope, and saw them cease to chase
    Each other round in circles, and heard the eldest speak:
    Who holds the world between His bill and made us strong or weak
    Is an undying moorfowl, and He lives beyond the sky.
    The rains are from His dripping wing, the moonbeams from His eye.
    I passed a little further on and heard a lotus talk:
    Who made the world and ruleth it, He hangeth on a stalk,
    For I am in His image made, and all this tinkling tide
    Is but a sliding drop of rain between His petals wide.

    A little way within the gloom a roebuck raised his eyes
    Brimful of starlight, and he said: The Stamper of the Skies,
    He is a gentle roebuck; for how else, I pray, could He
    Conceive a thing so sad and soft, a gentle thing like me?

    I passed a little further on and heard a peacock say:
    Who made the grass and made the worms and made my feathers gay,
    He is a monstrous peacock, and He waveth all the night
    His languid tail above us, lit with myriad spots of light.

  • Invisible Neutrino

    I do NOT hate you. I *DO* believe sodomy and lesbianism are sinful acts.

    What a surprise, how about I tell you I do believe that being a Christian is a sinful act because look, my holy book says so?

    How would you feel?

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    I would not consider that you hated me- I know Muslims, Jews and Hindus who believe exactly this- that I am wrong, and they are right. I far, far prefer these people to the logically messed-up “my truth/your truth” lobby. I had a Muslim friend for over a year, he was hardcore, we tried to convert one another (unsuccessfully) then got onto other matters. I would not have lasted nearly so long with a Muslim saying “well the Qu’ran’s true FOR ME, but if YOU believe so, the Bible is YOUR truth for YOU about *your god*”… Anyone starts speaking like that, I ask them to explain themselves and if they can’t work out a more sensible position then I end up not speaking to them at all. So there you go.
    And if a Mormon told me I was sinning by drinking coffee, because it’s a stimulant, I would not DARE tell them that they hated me and they either accept me as I am, because it’s my body, my choice, or they fuck off because they are a contradiction-in-terms bigot. No, motherfuck that. I would ACCEPT they disapprove of something I do- and that they couldn’t stop me- and we could stay friends. Love the sinner, hate the sin is absolutely genuine, no matter what radical activists might try to shove into your brains. They are your second worst enemy, behind genuine gay haters.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Drinking coffee? Choice.

    Who to be sexually attracted to? Not choice.

    I thought you were taking your bigotry somewhere the fuck else.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    Whether to have sex? Choice. Now take your fucking stupidity somewhere the fuck else.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Nope. I was here first.

    And you’re wrong. Requiring someone with a sex drive never to have sex is a bad thing. Unless the person in question is you yourself, in which case knock yourself out.

  • Dave

    We shall see who’s right on Judgment Day.

    Awesome. It’s a date.

    In the meantime, you’re free not  to care what I think, and you’re free to make whatever moral judgments you wish about my sex life with my husband, much as I’m free not to care what you think and make whatever moral judgments you wish about various aspects of your life.

    We are not free to deny one another civil equality on that basis.

    If you’re OK with that, we can get along in mutual disdain.
    If not, you have declared yourself my political enemy.

    It’s really pretty simple.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    It’s not hate to say that people should refrain from indulging desires which go against God’s ideal for mankind. Sorry, it’s just not. If I was being told to avoid something which I had a strong desire to do, and I didn’t particularly like or know the person saying it and they were on the other side of a political divide to me then I could easily cry “you hate me!” at them. It doesn’t make it a reality.

  • EllieMurasaki

    It’s not hate to say that people should refrain from indulging desires which go against God’s ideal for mankind

    Citation needed, on ‘it’s not hate’, ‘desires which go against God’s ideal for [humanity]’, and ‘God’. The Bible is not a valid citation on any point, because you are not arguing with another Christian. Also not a valid citation on the first point: the viewpoint of literally anyone who has never been hurt by being told that something inherent to their sexual being, that would do no harm if indulged in in a consensual and safe (or at least risk-aware) manner, is wrong.

  • Ross

     If I were to try to legislate that you should never be happy so long as you live, I think that would count as hate.

  • Dave

    Sure, you’re entitled to believe whatever you believe. Social progress doesn’t mean you have to change your mind, simply that you and those like you have less power to influence the lives of others than you once did.

    For which relief, much thanks.

    Your moral and theological views are false, and insofar as you seek to base the way other people are treated on those views you are my political opponent, and I probably wouldn’t like you if I got to know you. But as long as you don’t go around actively abusing those weaker than you, you don’t elicit hate from me.

    Merely distaste.

  • Lori

    I refer to liberals as bigoted insofar as many have spewed hate at me
    for promoting traditional sexual morality (abstinence until a man/woman
    marriage, a chaste life for people with same-sex attraction). 

    When you go around calling people names some of them are going to hate you. That’s the price you pay for being hateful.

    And that sexual morality position is one which I reject outright as one
    which panders to unrestrained lust and promiscuity, grieving our Maker-
    and it grieves Him whether OR NOT the person committing the sexual sin
    believes in Jesus.  

    You are perfectly free to reject this position. You are not free to try to force other people to do so, or at least to behave as if they do. Not even if your assumptions about God’s existence and what does and does not grieve him are correct. Each person much work out their own salvation and you are not God’s grief counselor.

    If you can’t wrap your head around that well enough to stop saying stupid things like “lesbigay” and “liebigo” then you need to take your opinions somewhere else because that kind of crap is not welcome here.

  • The_L1985

     If you look carefully at my personal code of sexual morality, you’ll notice there is nothing there that says you CAN’T abstain–in fact, if you’re dating someone who wants to abstain until marriage, my code says “DON’T have sex with that person, because they don’t want it.”  A person can follow my code and still choose to abstain until marriage, so I’m not sure how it “panders to unrestrained lust.”  Indeed, it sets clear boundaries on lust–look at all the “don’ts” in it–so by definition, lust is being restrained!

    My code is also more restrictive than some folks I’ve heard with regard to marital rape: Even if you’re married to a person, you shouldn’t have sex with your spouse if they clearly do not want it at the moment.

    I also support taking responsibility for anything that happens as a result of intercourse, which is the exact same thing I’ve heard WRT the abortion and contraceptive debates  from both sides.

    Even if my code were somehow enacted into law, it would still allow
    people to practice traditional sexual morality–even to the levels of
    some extremist Christian groups who forbid kissing or holding hands
    until marriage!  I am not against anyone who wishes
    to remain celibate, nor am I against anyone who
    wishes to abstain until marriage, nor am I against
    men marrying women (as a woman who wants to marry a man, I would be
    quite the hypocrite if I did).  I want people to exercise their own
    individual consciences WRT sex and marriage.

    Your freedom of conscience allows you to live in the way your religion dictates–including its rules about sexuality.  It does not allow you to make other people follow your conscience.  I refrain from cheating, stealing, lying, murdering, slander, etc. because my conscience tells me that these things are wrong.  I find it very offensive and dishonest for you to act as if I have no conscience at all, simply because I have slightly different perspectives on ONE facet of the human experience.

    As for your first paragraph:

    “past childbearing age”–  I have yet to see anyone in this blog state that YOU, personally, are old.  However, most people who share your views are, in fact, older people.  This is a statistical fact.

    “born with these views”– I have yet to see anyone in this blog state that YOU, personally, were brought up as a conservative.  However, most people tend to perpetuate the views of their parents, statistically speaking.

    As for fundamentalism–“My belief is that the New Testament Scripture, not the culture of the
    time, decides what is sexually acceptable in general.  I
    consider the basic outline to be both permanent and universal and those
    with different views to be objectively wrong on that particular issue.”   I went to Christan-fundamentalist-run private schools, and that was the staff’s position on literally every issue, from sex to what media were appropriate to which scientific evidence they would accept as true.  You may not be a fundamentalist yourself, but your rhetoric and position sound awfully close to theirs.  I can see how other people might be confused about this.

    “that I am secretly homosexual”–Now this one just isn’t fair.  While it’s true that some prominent anti-gay activists have been caught having sex with other men, that doesn’t mean most of you are secretly struggling with same-sex attraction.  That one is a lie, and one I don’t like people repeating.  I support equal rights for gay people, but to me, that doesn’t mean putting other people down, or implying things about them that are probably not true.  I am truly sorry that people have said this of you.

    I am sorry that these generalstatistics and observations were used or interpreted as a personal affront, but things that are true about most people in a group don’t necessarily apply to all of them!  You are an exception, and there is nothing wrong with being an unusual member of your group.  But please don’t try to enact your religious beliefs into laws that affect all Americans–here in the US, the 1st Amendment prohibits the establishment of a government religion, and allows people to practice whatever religion they wish.  You are free to promote your rules for sexual morality, but please do not attempt to legislate them.

  • Ross

     You should look up what “bigotry” means. Because “Being treated badly because you are trying to hurt people” does not, technically speaking, meet the definition.

    Also, you should look up what “promoting” means, because “Taking steps to ensure that people who are not heterosexual should be denied the right to marry someone they love and instead condemn them to a life of social ostracism and romantic unfulfilment” does not, technically, meet the definition of “promoting traditional sexual morality”.

    You should also look up what “traditional” means, because if the sexual morality you’re promoting isn’t “Women are essentially chattel, sex is for the pleasure of men and for ensuring them heirs. Men are free to marry as many women as they can afford and take on concubines and mistresses to meet their sexual desires, while women have no recourse as they aren’t really people but property,” then, again technically, what you’re promoting doesn’t meet the definition of “traditional” sexual morality.

    Finally, you should have a look at the gospels, because if you’re trying to oppress and hurt others, to denigrate them or accuse them of “hurting God” through their “sexual sin”, then, and again, I admit this is only a technicality, you aren’t working from a moral position compatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    1) Telling people the truth about God is not “hurting” people- it may offend them if they disbelieve it and it conflicts with the way they live or their convictions, but that is the price of spreading the Gospel. It isn’t done out of hate or malice.

    2)Jesus treated women decently, if you look at the Gospels. By “traditional” I mean the actual New Testament teaching- one man, one woman within marriage. Not the Old Testament teaching, which was superseded by the New, and most definitely not the misogynist social constructs made up by sinful men who refuse to be faithful to their wives. I am aware of the evil double-standard existing in the minds of many men across the ages- including those who profess to be Christian- where men are excused their lust and women expected to meet legalistic and extreme standards for not “tempting” men, and blamed for everything bad (including rape and being killed by jealous husbands) if they do not comply. I am very much against this false social construct- because it conflicts with God’s Word, which requires that men be the “husband of one wife” and that they “love their wives as Christ loves the Church” (which is an exclusive relationship, precluding any sexual dalliances on the side). 

    There are two ways of getting rid of the double standard: get men to control themselves sexually (which is what I support), or do as third-wave atheist feminists like Hanna Rosin, Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Valenti suggest and encourage women to be promiscuous as well. Which one is more compatible with treating sex as an expression of a sacred bond of commitment? This was the original intention of God- hence Adam and Eve are part of the ideal in the Genesis story, before society existed, before sin corrupted man’s vision, there is a loving couple, one male and one female- brought together as one flesh under God.

    I say that instead of claiming the man-woman marriage definition bequeathed to us by Christ is “phobic” or “oppressive” and seeking to apologise for God’s Truth and radically redefine a sacrament of the Church in a way He has given us no authority to do, or trying to copy the unbeliever and surrender to worldliness and sexual abandon, God’s people apologise for their history of misogyny, up to the teachings about responsibility for sexual sin in many churches right now in 2013. Then we can get to staying separated from sin and seeking holiness, but doing so by teaching boys abstinence and breaking down the image of a “successful” man as one with extensive sexual experience, and aggressively challenging the excuses that the male sex tends to buy into. Nothing less will reverse the baleful effects of so many years directing the abstinence message mainly to girls and women while simultaneously disempowering and delegitimising them, so they are left without adequate supports for resisting the scions of patriarchy and their inflated sense of entitlement.  

    I also do not advocate “social ostracision” of any sort based on sexual preference- that is NOT what chastity means. It means not having sex; the spiritual joy found by those called to singleness far outweighs any “romantic unfulfilment” you speak of.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Telling people the truth about God is not “hurting” people- it may offend them if they disbelieve it and it conflicts with the way they live or their convictions, but that is the price of spreading the Gospel. It isn’t done out of hate or malice.

    Get off my foot. You are standing on my foot, and there is more of you than there is of me and I can feel my bones breaking. I do not care if you are doing it from hate or malice or innocence or love. You are all up in my personal space and you refuse to back off and you are standing on my foot and hurting me get the fuck off.

  • EllieMurasaki

    the spiritual joy found by those called to singleness far outweighs any “romantic unfulfilment” you speak of.

    Oh, and, I don’t know yet whether I’m “called to singleness”. I doubt it: a thought often on my mind is whether I have the nerve this week to take a right off my commute at a certain point, then take a left, then park at the gay bar and go inside. (Only place in the county where I know for sure I can be openly queer and accepted. I can cite an executive order says my place of employment is such a place, lucky me, not-lucky people like me not covered by the order.)

    I want love, I want commitment, I want sex. I do not want to deal with sexist and heterosexist (and cissexist, but on that count I think I’m screwed) bullshit to get any of the above from/with someone. Which probably means one of my criteria for a long-term partner is that they too have a uterus. (I won’t rule out people with penises. Dating them hasn’t ended well in the past, but that was mostly unrelated to their having penises. But.)

    The reason I just commented to yell at you for standing on my foot? If I am not “called to singleness”, but I am not called to heteronormative wedded bliss either, then there is no place for me in conservative Christian sexual morality, and there sure as fuck isn’t any “spiritual joy”.

  • Invisible Neutrino

    Didn’t Daniel Inouye also say some problematic things around DOMA? ISTR not being that enamored of him for some reason.

  • Madhabmatics

    Other things that are alike:

    Someone wanting to eat chocolate icecream

    and me being locked in a cell for 12 days with no food and water

    you see because I don’t like either of those things,

  • Madhabmatics

    Also just wanna take a moment to point out that this dude said someone would be wrong in the afterlife, and when they merely said “We’ll see” he got mad because THEY ARE SAYING HE MIGHT BE WRONG, HOW DARE THEY.

    I usually hate threads that are like two months old but still have people posting responding to dumb people, but this guy is kinda hilarious in his awfulness so I guess I’ll give this thread my seal of approval.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I thought he flipped out when I told him flat out he’s wrong. I might be mistaken, though, I think sleep dep is capable of fucking with the memory.

  • Madhabmatics

     You’re right, it was your post!

    Still, “How dare you imply I am not absolutely 100% heaven bound” is hilarious

  • EllieMurasaki

    Kind of sad, actually. He really does seem to think that divine justice is less, well, just, certainly less merciful, than human justice. And if that’s the case, he’s getting dropkicked downstairs same as every other human ever born. In that situation, we at least would have the consolation of having reason to believe the eternal torture sprang from refusing to bow to that monster. He would be a loyal servant of that monster, eternally begging for justice or mercy from someone capable of neither.

    Nihilism is far less bleak.

    As I said, lucky him that I’m right and there’s no gods or hell or Judgment Day. Or, alternately, lucky him that some other folks around here are right and whatever deity/ies exist are friendly.

  • fiona64

     You should have seen his “loving Christianity” in action over on ReligionDispatches, replete with more obscenity than a stevedore with Tourette’s syndrome.  And boy, was he mad when we pointed out that he, at age 19, really didn’t know enough to school us … yikes.

  • Invisible Neutrino

    Down with the “your-god” talk. It is offensive enough to use a small “g”
    without trying to relativise the Absolute with a personal pronoun. God
    is not personal to me- He is God of ALL.

    You’re like the nastier, meaner version of Ginny Bain Allen, who at least just uses irritatingly false bonhomie.

  • fiona64

     Oh, gad, is  *she* ever a piece of work …