Whew, what a relief ... that a member of the Blogging Tories would try to counteract the overwhelming, vindictive hate coming out of the BTs lately with some plain, down-home retardedness. So here comes Joanne:
Jonathan Kay has had a controversial series of posts in the National Post's Full Comment. It starts here, then here and finally culminates in today's print column generated from this post.
The main issue seems to be this particular statement in the original post:
...In fact, many Canadians still regarded homosexuality as a lifestyle choice rather than what it is — a hard-wired aspect of a person's identity, little different from their race or sex...
(Well I might might dispute the notion of sex or gender being hard-wired these days. It seems to be more like something you decide when you get up in the morning.)
Quite right, Joanne ... because the existence of a transsexual who underwent gender reassignment surgery and still managed to get pregnant obviously allows one to conclude that choosing one's gender is something you can do over your morning double latte with skim. But the dumbfuck retarditude doesn't end there (this is Joanne we're talking about, after all):
In any case Mr. Kay, who is openly secular, believes that homosexuality is hard-wired. Indeed, he is convinced of it and chastises the religious right for vocalizing any opposing viewpoint ...
So what I glean from this is that Jonathan Kay wants everyone on the religious right to shut up, because he feels that they are embarrassing him and undermining the credibility of the right.
Let's be clear - There is no place in Canada for the incitement of hatred of any kind. However, we must differentiate between being able to vocalize one's personal religious belief vs. hate mongering against any other group of citizens.
Um ... two things here, JoJo. First, since you clearly haven't figured this out, it's depressingly common for the Godly to spew their hate mongering all over the place, then defend their right to do so as part of their religious beliefs. You know, "Well, sure I hate those filthy faggots, but only because God tells me to. So don't be all trampling on my religious beliefs, know what I'm sayin'? Fucking faggots."
But JoJo also seems to be missing Kay's main point, which is that, while ignorant gomers like JoJo have every right to say stupid things, all they're doing is making the non-retarded devout look like cretins by association. Note Jonathan's use of the word "embarrassing," JoJo ... yes, he really is talking about yobs like you, who give Christians everywhere a bad name.
So, no, JoJo, Jonathan doesn't want everyone on the right to shut up -- only really stupid, intolerant people like you. Yes, it really is possible to discredit an entire demographic based on the actions of its more hare-brained, mouth-breathing members, something Blogging Knuckle Draggers co-founder Stephen Taylor should have figured out long ago.
Sadly, it still hasn't dawned on him yet. Oh, well ... maybe some day.
35 comments:
With the Jo-Jo's of the word, it's not simply the issue that people like her should be able to express their beliefs; they're demanding that these beliefs be taken seriously, to the point of influencing the common good.
What on odd understanding of how the world works. And frankly, evil.
As is my custom, I comment today to defend Jolly Joanne.
What Joanne understands — and Jonathon obviously does not — is that the whole point of replacing the Progressive Conservatives with the Conservative Party of Canada was to purge every shred of progress from Canadian politics.
The stick-in-the-mud here is Jonathon — not Joanne.
Let us all praise JoJo.
But she's not clever or cunning enough to deserve your praise, Seer. She certainly tries to aspire to be the agent of change for Canada's return to the 18th century; she's got the passive-aggression and the innuendo down pat...not to mention a commentariat that she nurtures carefully to make sure only the completely insane feel comfortable there. But she's no Kate McMillan, or Barbara Kay.
To be fair, I don't know enough about the biological or psychological evidence behind it, but I'm not in favour of arguing from the "hard-wired" angle. As far as I'm concerned, homosexuality, the transgendered, and so on, are engaging in consensual and informed activities that aren't hurting anybody else, and that's why they should be tolerated and accepted. To argue from the point of "hard-wiring" I feel slots non-heteronormative sexuality into the category of "disease" or something that can be "cured", which can take people in disturbing directions, when the real issues at stake are liberty and civil rights.
Also, I don't buy that most people have an absolute sexual orientation. I think we're programmed for both traditionally male and female mating behaviours--we all have the "software" loaded; it's a matter of hormones which programs are run, and a matter of some experimentation for some people to decide what they actually prefer. I think the number of people who are 100% straight or 100% gay or lesbian are incredibly small, if they exist at all.
It’s the same old “pity us poor, oppressed white Christians that everyone abuses” spiel that the SoCons never tire of bleating and whining about. They get so darned indignant whenever people challenge their “right” to be narrow-minded, hateful bigots on the basis of some verses they’ve cherry-picked out of the Big Book of God.
You should check out some of the comments over there. Wow.
Religion is as dangerous as secular dogma, both do not belong in this century.
So we should all what wayne? Believe in magical sky fairies but not go to church?
To argue from the point of "hard-wiring" I feel slots non-heteronormative sexuality into the category of "disease" or something that can be "cured", which can take people in disturbing directions, when the real issues at stake are liberty and civil rights.
I'm not so concerned. Genetics is pointing to a number of manifestations of human nature that may be hard-wired. What we do with that knowledge should concern everyone, including...well, "conservatives" obsessed with the private lives of other people most of all.
You should check out some of the comments over there. Wow.
I know. The hilarity in that list "hierarchy of rights." How come "the ignorant and stupid" didn't make number one?
Wayne:
What the fuck do you mean by "secular dogma?" Seriously, can you define that in any meaningful way, or give even one example of that? Or are you just inventing fake equivalences again?
"secular dogma"
nice straw herring, wayne. let's you off the hook for aligning yourself with the christofascists.
KEvron
I think he means the dogmatic response of secularists to people throwing themselves on the ground and speaking loudly in tongues in the middle of a restaurant or on public transport.
You're dogmatic if you frown upon such things.
er, "lets"....
KEvron
By the way, Wayne, the very phrase "secular dogma" is a meaningless oxymoron. The general definition of the word "secular" is "non-religious," while the word "dogma" typically refers to religious doctrine.
In short, you've wandered in here and spewed self-contradictory idiocy. Colour me so not surprised.
CC:
Read Jean-Francois Revel book, The Flight from Truth: The Reign of Deceit in the Age of Information
Then you will know what I mean.
And.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=677_1207003198
jean-francois revel mollests collies.
next.
KEvron
jean-francois revel mollests collies.
Eewwwwwww ... I'm not reading anything by a collie-molester.
Google "dogma", follow the link to Wikipedia which speaks thusly:
Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation — referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. This pejorative connotation is even stronger with the term dogmatic, used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument.
Secular dogma is, for example, what the fetus fetishists use when they want to camouflage their religion, often by referring to "natural law" as supporting their position. So yes, it is equally dangerous and does not belong in this century.
"jean-francois revel mollests collies." Could be true, but he still makes valid points.
CC can be an asshole but he makes valid points. So what is the point.
but, but, but.... then you'll miss wayne's most cogent point!
your assertion, wayne. your burden to support it. you've chosen to cite a reference; now's your chance to demonstrate that you've actually understood the matter.
not that revel's viuews should have any influence here....
KEvron
"he still makes valid points."
wouldn't know it by anything you've said here.
KEvron
"So yes, it is equally dangerous and does not belong in this century."
without definition, how can the claim be made?
KEvron
liberal supporter said...
"Secular dogma is, for example, what the fetus fetishists use when they want to camouflage their religion, often by referring to "natural law" as supporting their position. So yes, it is equally dangerous and does not belong in this century."
This should be made into a sign, dead on balls accurate.
i think you and i have both missed the sarcasm in ls's comment, wayne.
KEvron
KEvron "without definition, how can the claim be made?"
Very good point. It took liberal supporter to do it.
The article and book say it far better than I ever could.
Wayne:
I don't respond to discussion by being told to go read a book. If you can't defend your own points here, then don't make them.
"It took liberal supporter to do it."
read it again. i did.
KEvron
"If you can't defend your own points here, then don't make them."
or, shorter: "jean-francois revel mollests collies."
KEvron
Excellent well crafted sarcasm.
You got it, I got it. You have given me somethings to think about.
Thanks. KEvron.
Thanks. CC
"You have given me somethings to think about"
sadly, i cannot reciprocate the sentiment.
KEvron
btw, wayne,
suggested reading is perfectly fine, but it should come after you've made your case, not in lieu of it.
KEvron
1) Secularism grew out of Christianity like French grew out of Latin. They express similar ideals in social policy in different ways.
2) Secularism is good for religion and religion is good for secularism. Both keep each other in check.
3) Besides, secularism isn't going away anytime soon so Christians better learn to get along with it.
Read: Atlantic Monthly: And the winner is...
Dan
(a practising Anglican)
Oh, and speaking as a gay man, homosexuality is hard wired.
Whether scientific research ultimately finds a gene, a series of genes or some other mechanism, like a combo of hormones secreted during pregnancy, pretty much every gay person experiences their sexuality as innate.
The colossal failure of everything from fundagelical "healing ministries" to the best attempts of psychological and medical science to change sexual orientation over the past 60 years shows that no one is going to make it go away, no matter how hard one tries to push gay people into the shadows.
Vive la difference, I say. Why would anyone want everyone to look and act like a Calgary suburbanite anyway?
"why would anyone want everyone to look and act like a Calgary suburbanite anyway?"
I know I wouldn't. I have these delusions of being unique that cloning would utterly destroy...or in other words, uh yeah right, I'm just like Richard Evans I am. Or any of my (likely disturbing to Evans) diverse neighbours.
Post a Comment