The religion of love

Christians love to compare their gentle and loving religion favorably with certain other religions that shall remain nameless. They conveniently leave out that Christianity looks so gentle and loving because, at least in the West, it has been watered down beyond recognition since the Enlightenment. Consider how modern Christians shrug off doctrinal differences over which Christians in previous centuries killed one another in creative ways. Consider also the religion of love in its undiluted form in Uganda.

The blame game

It's long been part of consensus reality that gay men deserve the blame for anorexia. That being the case, how much of the credit do we get for the plateau in obesity rates?

The anti-marriage excuse-o-mat (2)

In an op-ed column titled "Stacking the Deck Against Proposition 8," Edwin Meese, that great lover of liberty, asserts that "traditional" marriage promotes "interests [that] are broader than the personal special interests of the adults involved." Well, gosh, I thought that the problem with gay rights was that we wanted collective rights at the expense of individual rights. Now it turns out to be the exact opposite. The deck is indeed stacked.

Gay men and racism

Yet again, someone has played the gay-male-racism card. In a discussion on whether to put same-sex marriage to a popular vote, someone asserted that because gay men are supposedly racist, we have no business addressing anyone else's bigotry.

First, as I've said before, a preference for a certain characteristic in a sexual partner does not automatically equate to racism. Second, even if we assume arguendo that it does, where are the white gay male organizations or leaders who are demanding the right to vote away others' rights? When I asked that, the person raising the issue immediately changed the subject. I guess we can add that question to the ever-growing list of NAQ (never answered questions) on same-sex marriage.

Yes, I am aware of this (and note that I have linked to the actual article, while others have been content to link to blog posts about blog posts about it). Nonetheless, even the study's authors acknowledge major limitations therein, such as the representativeness of the sample. For one thing, what they describe about the San Francisco area does not match what I have seen in the D.C. area. Is there any good reason to believe that as San Francisco goes, so goes the nation, the world, or the jurisdiction that caused the discussion to arise in the first place, namely, D.C.?

Finally, the article does not demonstrate that gay men are more racist than any other group of people. It seems, yet again, that gay men have a unique obligation to be plaster saints.

Fabulous queer dating tip #7: Join us on the Möbius strip of love.

If you're a gay man, be sure to seek someone younger and hotter but less well educated. If you're a lesbian, be sure to seek someone richer. No, you may not ask how everyone is going to find a date under this system.

Planning on posting to an Internet discussion board?

If you're planning to post to an Internet discussion board (including a Usenet newsgroup, just in case anyone still uses them), please score your planned post using the guide below to determine whether you should do so. Starting with a score of zero, add or subtract each indicated value that corresponds to your post.

• Do you commit a logical fallacy not otherwise covered here? (+10 for each one; if you are called on it and assert that it doesn't matter, +20; if you commit a logical fallacy in the course of accusing someone else of that same logical fallacy, +20)
• When proved wrong, do you:
  
• admit that you were wrong? (-20)
• come up with some ridiculous explanation as to how your wrongness was actually a higher form of rightness? (+20)
• say that you were just kidding, when you plainly weren't? (+10)
• change the subject (+10, unless you started the thread, in which case +20)
• throw up some red herring? (+10)
• appeal to ridicule? (+20)
• claim that you are being persecuted for some personal characteristic that is beside the point and not because you were wrong? (+30)
• continue to use the argument anyway as though nothing had happened? (+40)
• Do you spend substantially more time defending a position than you did researching it? (+10, unless you didn't research the position at all, in which case +20)
• DO YOU USE THE CAPS LOCK OF TRUTH OR THE REPEATED PUNCTUATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS??????? (+10 for one or the other; +30 for both)
• Do you "correct" someone else on that person's inner life, or on events in that person's life that you could not possibly know? (+20 each occurrence)
• Do you lecture people on a subject with which you are "familiar" only from the popular media or your own speculation? (+10 generally; if you should have known that your audience includes people intimately familiar with that subject, +20; if you have actual knowledge that your audience includes people intimately familiar with that subject, +30; if you are merely asking questions of knowledgeable people; -10)
• When called on the above, do you assert that those people's intimate familiarity with the subject precludes them from expressing an opinion on it? (+20)
• When people ask for evidence for your assertions, do you:
• provide it? (-10)
• ignore them? (+10)
• say that your assertions are self-evident, when they're not? (+10)
• tell them to do their own research? (+20)
• make another unsubstantiated assertion, this time about your expertise in the subject? (+30)
• claim that you are being persecuted for some personal characteristic that is beside the point and not because you haven't substantiated your assertions? (+30)
• Do you take the position that since sane adults making a free decision must necessarily agree with you, anyone who disagrees with you must be:
• doing so under duress? (+20)
• immature? (+30)
• mentally ill? (+40)
• When people disagree with you, do you take the trouble to find out why? (-30)
• Do you use a typo flame as an excuse not to make a substantive argument? (+30)
• Do you dismiss out of hand the notion that you could ever possibly have the burden of proof on anything? (+30)
  
• Do you address your audience as "children" unless you have a very good reason to do so? (+40)

How to score:

• 0 or negative: You should have no problem posting.
• 10-20: Take a deep breath and proofread.
• 30-40: Are you sure you want to post this at all?
• 50+: Are you sure you want to continue owning a computer at all?

Debating same-sex marriage with theists

I've been having some rather naughty fun debating same-sex marriage. I got one Christian to admit that he doesn't follow the Bible but expects me to do so. He came up with a necessarily strained explanation as to why that's okay. Also, when I bring up Biblical teachings on remarriage after divorce and on polygamy, people keep pretending not to have heard.

In fairness, our side is not necessarily better. Some gay theists know their own holy books and are willing to discuss them. Nonetheless, most of them, at least in my experience, never cite the Bible beyond "God is love" and "whosoever believeth," and they bitterly resent having the Bible quoted to them. When someone holds their feet to the fire, they almost immediately abandon any pretense of Bible belief and start spewing enough New-Age happy talk to make fluffy-bunny Wicca look theologically rigorous.

In debating the subject, I have no illusions of changing the minds of those who most vehemently argue the other side. They are either propagandists and con artists, to whom truth is completely beside the point, or sheeple who believe in belief, to whom truth is completely beside the point. Their bigotry needs a pretext, not a basis. Instead, I hope to let those in the middle see who argues from reason and who does not. I do so because I have seen the consequences when our activists let the other side win the argument by default.