UPDATE: story has been picked up around the country. Just what we need, right?
TQS: The North Carolina Advocacy Coalition took the stage as a defender of LGBT rights by demanding an apology from the Gulliford County Republican Party Chairman, Marcus Kindley. In an act of courage NCAC’s Executive Director Matt Hill Comer stated:
“Chairman Kindley’s remarks represent a harmful form of anti-gay prejudice and ignorance surrounding issues of sexuality, mental health and the law,� stated NCAC Executive Director Matt Hill Comer, “These remarks degrade peaceful, law-abiding and community-minded LGBT North Carolinians by comparing them to mentally ill individuals responsible for the mental, physical and sexual abuse and exploitation of children, the most vulnerable and precious members of our society.�
NCAC is requesting an immediate, formal apology from Guilford County Republican Party and its Chairman Marcus Kindley and a retraction of his derogatory, anti-gay remarks. As the leader of a political party and institution Chairman Kindley should be held to a higher standard and expectation of civility, courtesy and respect toward all citizens and members of society.
Disclaimer: GreensboroNet.com hosts the NCAC Director’s blog [link was right; text was corrected] as a paid subscriber to its hosting services. We do not discriminate. Period.
Slight correction… sort of. GreensboroNet hosts the blog of NCAC’s Executive Director. NCAC’s actual site and blog can be found at http://www.ncadvocacycoalition.org.
Today I listened to Edmund White, a famous Gay writer, on Fresh Air. He has an autobiograpghy about his life. He talked about lusting over older men as a 14 year old and his seeking professional counselling at the time to change his sexuality. How did he know he was gay? He lusted after men.
There it is. According to White and many enlightened, educated people, our sexuality is defined by our desire. And according to White and others, a person is not being true to himself unless they obey their sexual desires. So why is it wrong to compare or conflate gay sex with pedophilia? Or beastiality? If there is not any other method of determining one’s sexuality, then a man who desires sex with a dog or a child has no more choice of his sexuality than a gay person does. Fortunately, most civilized countries condemn pedophilia and – at the very least-look down on beastiality.
As humans, we are born with a sense of right and wrong. It means we have a choice about whether we obey our desires or not. CS Lewis puts it this way:
“Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the ‘laws of nature’ we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong ‘the Law of Nature,’they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation, and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had this law – with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.”
So a man or woman may have all sorts of physical desires, but he or she is never without a choice whether to or not to act on that desire. The question becomes, what is right and what is wrong?
The New Testament tells us that believers in Christ must put to death the desires of the flesh- and replace them with the Spirit of Christ. The Bible is clear about any sex outside the bounds of marraige, including gay sex, beastiality, pedophilia and other sexual preferences. It is all sinful. (Sin is defined here as rebellion against God.)
While I’m here, I think it is important to point out that sex is a much smaller part of our life than our culture suggests. Sex is awesome, powerful, mysterious and more. But anybody who suggest it is essential is lying.
[...] NCAC demands apology from Guilford County Republican Party Chair, Sue’s Place [...]
That’s the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard. Why? Any younger boy can tell you that they’ve lusted after … well.. pretty much any model or whatever in the pages of “X” where X = you name it. Every person I’ve ever known has liked someone “older” as a kid. So does that constitute pedophilia too? Give me a break. If you’re going to make the comparison that way, then I can apply it to pretty much anything you want to say a “straight” guy is.
The biggest issue with this (Kindley’s quote)? Regardless of what you or something else think about gay people, comparing it to illegal things is plain wrong (regarding Kindley’s quote). It’s like saying swinging a golf club is the same as swinging a baseball bat. Or wait, trading on the stock market is the same as illegal gambling houses.
Comparing gays to Biblical sins? One the the leading sins right there behind greed, is lust. Fine, if you want to call a gay male, someone that lusts after another gay male. Whoopiedeedoo. You can’t say that straight men don’t “lust” after other women. Even after marriage. Isn’t cheating against one of the ten commandments? I swear it was. And in the US, it’s one of the leading things that breaks up marriages right after money. Go figure. Gree and lust again.
No, I didn’t proofread so there are mistakes. HAHAHAHA.
Chewie bit me for spelling “racism” wrong on Hogg’s blog. When I vent, I rarely spell check. You’re forgiven.
DM- You can’t have it both ways- regardless of legality- Matt and Sue are arguing that gay sex is as normal as heterosexual sex. They base it on a person’s desire. And since it is possible for consentual pedophilia (regardless of our laws), the adult who desires sex with 14 year olds is no different than any one of us.
Have it both ways? Huh? You’re the one that’s explaining that being gay is lustful right?
Yup. That’s your quote there. So outside of legality, the argument of a young boy lusting after men is no different from a young boy lusting after women.
Since for some odd reason, people seem to want to play the Bible into this, then if you are charging the gay community with lust and thereby sinful, then the same can be said about the straight community.
I’m saying, everything you’ve said is a double-edged sword. There hasn’t been one good reason to use the pedophilia argument outside of legality. It’s not a well-thought out argument. In any sort of debate, this argument style would have been ruled out because it has too many openings for hypocrisy.
I understand where conservative Christians come from, but the lust argument is way whacko and the pedophilia argument is uncalled for. It’s like if someone were to say that all conservative Christians were prejudice. Talk about throwing a grenade into a campfire and continuing the conversation like nothing is going to happen.
And just fyi: From this quote:
You’re basically saying that LGBT “desires” are no different from straight “desires”. And logically by your A=B=C comment, the deduction can be made that:
Gay desires = Straight desires (“any one of us”) = pedophile desires (“the adult who desires sex with 14 year olds”)
Scary. Seriously scary.
No, they are saying there is no difference. They are equating desire with sexual preference. I am arguing against it.
Also, the Bible is critical in this argument. Most Republicans have proudly embraced it as a motivating factor in governing. I suspect Marcus is an avid student of the Bible.
Okay. So what you’re saying is that sex isn’t desire. And desire isn’t lust? If anyone is trying to play both ends, it’s not me. It’s you.
So assume that that argument (gay sexual desire != hetero sexua desire). But according to your quote on the autobiographical guy, it was lust. So you’re equating all desires of any gay man to lust? Because if you play absolutes, then the same can be said about straight men also. If you say that straight men have the choice between love and lust, then the same can be said about gay men.
The problem with the argument is that if you don’t level the playing field and say that we’re all men, then you’re taking a higher ground saying that straight people are better than gay people because for some odd reason, apparently we’re not all given the same choices. If that’s the case, then I argue that the same can be said between the white and black community 50 years ago, or how about women? It’s the same argument re-applied because we are all humans. Religion is a choice on belief. Thereby, while it can dictate right and wrong in your life, it doesn’t dictate right and wrong in all humans.
[...] Chip Atkinson: …”And since it is possible for consentual pedophilia (regardless of our laws), the adult who desires sex with 14 year olds is no different than any one of us.” [...]
[...] NCAC demands apology from Guilford County Republican Party Chair, Sue’s Place [...]
The author is a famous gay apologist. I don’t think any lust is good if it controls us. The Bible teaches us that all people sin against God. No one is righteous, but Christ. So a straight sinner is no better off than a person who has gay sex.
We are not all born with the same opportunities and choices. There are many reasons people act the way they do- and I don’t judge them -even when I disagree. The Bible has always been a central influence in our laws, culture and morals. It teaches that gay sex is sinful, as is all sex outside of marraige.
I believe Christ is the one and only true God, regardless of how many people don’t believe. I do see some truth in other religions- and I respect a person’s right to practice their faith. But make no mistake, I believe this as true as the law of gravity.
Let me put it another way. Outside of the different perspectives of “how” gay people are gay.
You believe that everything is a choice correct? You choose to be a Christian. You choose to live by the Bible. Even the Bible says that you must make the choice and choose between God and the others.
Love, desire, lust, whatever… is still a choice for all humans regardless if you’re gay, straight, whatever. The Bible says it’s a sin. So? You made the choice to live by the Bible. Not the gay person. If they did, then they’ll have their inner demons to deal with as far as which is correct or how they choose to interpret the Bible. And if you say there’s no intepretations of the Bible, then I say: when was the last time you read it in Hebrew? or Latin? or in historical context? Because from the little I’ve studied, historical context changes wordings like “virgin” to mean “maiden”. Which is very very different in today’s languages.
So the basis is: if you agree that all humans have the choice to believe in whatever faith, and live whatever lives they choose to live then what harm is there to give them the same opportunities offered to everyone else? If you offer it to me because I’m a different ethnicity, then you shouldn’t have an issue with offering it to another person either. I suppose you can say: well… the same can be applied to pedophilia and that’s illegal. But then that because a circular argument since we’ve already addressed the legal bounds of pedophilia in the arguments above. I would imagine everything I’ve said holds pretty true unless you just happen to try to be forcing your belief system onto others. Then I don’t know what to say to that except “good luck.”
Chip, you wrote, “Matt and Sue are arguing that gay sex is as normal as heterosexual sex…”
Whether or not I believe that, I don’t think you’ll find that in anything I wrote. Don’t put words in my mouth; don’t tell me what I believe.
My point: Marcus Kindley’s post portrayed pedophelia as equivalent to homosexuality and that is (a) wrong and (b) a stupid thing for a county party chair to post. It makes Greensboro and Guilford County look bad and if you checked the stats, you’d find the area score HIGH on “tolerance,” one of Richard Florida’s four Ts, and we have a thriving LGBT community that helps us be interesting to companies who are searching for diverse, talented, and creative communities in which to expand or locate their businesses.
Hate-speech has profoundly negative effects on the HARD work we’ve done to portray Guilford and Greensboro as they are – a comfortable and accepting place to everyone to live and work.
Chip, “I suspect Marcus is an avid student of the Bible.”
I know Marcus and he is an avid student and a good guy except when he’s blogging. I just wonder where he IS in this discussion, or is he a “hit and run” blogger who posts outrageous things just to get others all worked up and then slinks away so others can fight his battles?
You know what they call them where I come from? Cowards.
Sue- you love throwing “Hate” labels to people you disagree with. You say Marcus is wrong, but don’t say why. You think it is stupid for Marcus to say, which implies that most people think he’s wrong. (they don’t). It doesnt make the County or the Party look bad. Where’s the “hate” Sue?
How do you know that gay sex isn’t love? As above, if we’re all human and we’re all given a choice between love and lust. I couldn’t say, since I’m not but if you reapply your logic to Marcus’ comment then it becomes:
We now say that hetereosexuality and homosexuality are ok. That it is natural. Yes it is as natural as pedophilia.
Great. We’re all doomed from the beginning. haha. As above, I believe that if you’re not allowing for choice or equal field of play for people to choose, then what makes us as Americans any different from Communists? Or the Nazis? They also restricted choice. You can’t talk badly about the government (Communist). You can’t be Jewish (Nazi). I would imagine that we haven’t stooped that low as to say that Americans have lost the views of why we’re American in the first place. Unless you’re a cynic and just happen to think that America was founded because a bunch of rich white men wanted more power for themselves instead of having other rich white men controlling the power from overseas. haha.
I do think gay sex can involve real love. I have observed that most men love other men as deeply as their wives. But sex is different than love. Sex, I believe, should be restricted to married couples. All others should abstain. Homosexual advocates are insisting that their sexual conduct be seen as natural, when there is no evidence to support their argument.
Marcus is making a stand against people who think I’m dead wrong.
Heh. That should go both ways then.
If you say that sex is restricted to married couples, then you have no issues with homosexual sex between married homosexuals. Which means you don’t agree with sex outside of marriage for anyone (which you have voiced before).
Thus, if I’m reading this correctly, outside of religion and such, as long as there is marriage, you’re okay with it.
That is totally different from what Marcus is saying. Marcus is making absolutes. You’re decreeing equality amongst all. “No sex until married” regardless of man/woman etc. Unless you’re making the stance that marriage should be between a man and woman. Then that’s forcing your belief onto others instead of driving equality.
marraige is defined as between a man an woman. its not about equality, but it is about right and wrong.
Jeebus, Chip. “hate?” Is that a republican technique used to change the course of the argument?
“Sue- you love throwing “Hateâ€? labels to people you disagree with.”
Tell me where I said “hate.” Sorry, it’s not there. Not said or implied. (BZZT! You lose, Chip.)
“You say Marcus is wrong, but don’t say why. You think it is stupid for Marcus to say, which implies that most people think he’s wrong. (they don’t).”
I didn’t say Marcus was wrong. I said it was stupid for him to blog such a thing as the chairman of a county political party. I also think it’s cowardly for him not to be in the discussion and I wonder where he is. And one more thing. Just because you say it or think it doesn’t make it true. You’ve got to learn that, Chip. (BZZT! You lose again, Chip.)
“It doesnt make the County or the Party look bad. Where’s the “hateâ€? Sue?”
It does make the county and the party look bad when national coverage talks about the anti-LGBT speech promulgated by a county party chair in Guilford. Do you honestly think this coverage is GOOD for Guilford County?
(BZZZZT!) We have lovely parting gifts for you, Chip.
Really? Man… I’m confused. So you are forcing your religious beliefs onto others then?
According to Wikipedia:
It then goes into detail that “Christian West” have practiced the husband and wife definition. Historically, we have had to define it as such due to procreation needs. This isn’t a “need” anymore.
Right and wrong? I disagree. If there’s right and wrong issues due to religious belief, then it goes back to the above. Fifty years ago, there would be black people lynched and no one thought about the right and wrong. A hundred years ago, there were burnings of “witches” and no one thought about that either. If it’s based on religion, then there is no equality. If it isn’t, then there needs to be a seriously re-thinking about why it is the way it is.
Sue – you used the term hate-speech. Did you not? You did say Marcus was wrong (My point: Marcus Kindley’s post portrayed pedophelia as equivalent to homosexuality and that is (a) wrong ). I disagreed and took the time to say why. You are the one making blanket statements as if the world agrees with you. And I think most of the country thinks homosexuality is unnatural, so they disagree with the LGBT.
DM- wikpedia is drastically wrong. Marraige historically has always been between a man and woman, with extremely rare exceptions. Go back to CS Lewis’s statement on The Law of Right & Wrong:
“Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the ‘laws of nature’ we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong ‘the Law of Nature,’they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation, and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had this law – with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.â€?
“And I think most of the country thinks homosexuality is unnatural, so they disagree with the LGBT.”
Magic words: “I think….”
Chip, what you think doesn’t make it fact. You cite nothing. There’s no proof except what YOU think.
My father (z”l) said over and over, “You can’t have logical discussions with fools, drunks, and liars.” He was a wise man.
Uhh.. Wikipedia’s references are a bit more vast than CS Lewis. I find it amusing that you use a writer on Christianity to debunk my neutral site, which by the way has many conservative eyes also. Yet, the Wikipedia definition isn’t contested at all. Your debunking of Wikipedia just states that you didn’t go read it, or it’s one of those last straw grasps because there isn’t enough proof.
Even with C.S. Lewis definition, that still doesn’t maintain how witches burned, and black people got lynched. There’s a definite “right and wrong” issue right there. All of them have direct and indrect ties to religion.
I’m not saying C.S. Lewis is wrong. I’m saying that Wikipedia incorporates a lot more factual information than a single writer’s perspective. For instance, anthropology, history, et al.
Even the external links sections outweighs your C.S. Lewis:
* The National Marriage Project at Rutgers University
* http://www.lsvd.de (German)
* http://ilga.org
* Social Determinants of Attitudes Towards Women’s Premarital Sexuality Among Female Turkish University Students
* Marriage Counseling & Family Therapy Blog
* Catholic Encyclopedia “History of Marriage”
Sue- you are the one insisting Marcus is using hate speech, that he is wrong and embarrasing our community- without supporting your argument with facts. Marcus- and I – have argued our position. Frankly, if you are going to accuse Marcus of those things- it is up to you to support your charges with facts. How about these facts:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
And now you are implying that we cant have a logical discussion because I’m either a fool, drunk or a liar. (I am glad your Dad was a wise man.)
Chip, outside of the marriage definition thing then…. you basically agree with everything else? That IF the marriage thing wasn’t defined as “man + woman” for you, then you wouldn’t have any issue with the gay sex, gay love, sex between two married people conversation.
Just making it clear that I know where you stand. Since you believe there is gay love, and there’s no doubt there is gay sex and we won’t have to go into the whole world of hetero sex. lol.
Come on DM- I read what you posted Wipedia said- When has marraige been defined as anything but between a man and a woman? And Lewis addressed witches being burned (google Mere Christianity, chapter 2). I
Wow. So much stuff.
I don’t blame Matt or others for not appreciating Mr. Kindley’s use of words. I think what he said was unhelpful and counterproductive. I have no idea who if anyone used the phrase “hate speech” for what Mr. Kindley said. But man, can we give the phrase “hate speech” a break? It’s too comvenient and harsh a way to smother other people’s opinions and freedom of speech. I don’t think Mr. Kindley was using hate speech. He was expressing a view. I think he was being unwise and unkind, but “hate speech” is a stretch. Can we take a break on the “hate speech” thing? There are other ways to call down Mr. Kindley.
Darkmoon: it does not really matter what Wikepedia says. The fact is that for the vast majority of history across all continents and all cultures western and eastern marriage has been between a man and a woman, or between a man and several women. Anthropology 101. That’s just a fact. You don’t need CS Lewis to make that a fact. The people writing that article on Wikipedia obviously are being, well, let’s say, “careful.” Some would say PC. I find Wikipedia useful but I wouldn’t use it for my school projects. You are too smart to lean on Wikipedia.
What is very difficult here and what bears on Mr. Kindley’s (and Chip’s) comments and your comments back Darkmoon is the overlap of religious and civil or political ideas and values. The manner in which those are interwoven (for everyone) is complex. Mr. Kindley writes as if it is not complex, and others write as if they don’t do the same in their own way. One is simple minded and the other naive, if not disingenuous (how does one spell that word?).
The fact is that for everyone fundamental moral values inform their political sense. No one is free of this. So let’s not act like this interplay of moral/religious values with political values is some issue with Marcus only.
When the culture itself loses a sense of consensus about fundamental values we end up where we are today – in a culture war. It is most definitely a war. And it bears upon political debate and discourse. I just hope we can wagethis war as kindly as possible in our civil society.
Joel
I have to say that after reading Mr. Kindley’s entire post that Matt Hill Comer needs to get off his high horse.
The post was about society. The post was Mr. Kindley’s opinion. Mr. Kindley has the right to have an opinion. Mr. Kindley has the right to state his opinion.
I also have an opinion and have the right to my opinion. If I shared my full opinion on the subject, I suppose Matt Hill Comer would be protesting at my house or wherever.
Earth to Matt: homosexuality is unnatural. It is aberrant behavior. The vast majority of humans view it that way.
I’m not trying to win an argument with you, because there is nothing to argue about. I try very hard to refrain form this debate at all levels because I can’t believe we are having it. Man was not created, nor did he evolve, to lust after and desire to have sex with another man. It is not normal in any context, be it from the perspective of nature, morality, religion or logic.
You can have access to all the technology in the world that allows you to promote your point of view, but the fact remains that the point of view you are promoting is aberrant.
Jeff, you assume that a man can’t lust or desire to have sex with another man. Yet, lo and behold, it’s happened his history time and again. Heck, the Romans did it as a type of mentoring for their males because women were considered subhuman.
I disagree with the aberrant view. The world viewed it as it was flat at one point. Or how about people thought the sun revolved around earth. Again, I as a straight male, don’t see what the issue is with another male choosing to be gay and being offended by it. Big whoopdeedoo. It’s not like the gay male is insisting on having sex with you or something.
Joel: if I’m not mistaken, the Bible speaks against sodomy, not male with male sex? You know more about it than I, so I’m asking for confirmation. I believe it does talk about marriage between man and woman. Sodomy can go both ways (gay and straight) so thus, if that’s the case, then I’m not so certain about the whole gay people not normal thought.
I use Wikipedia because it’s the most up-to-date, and it’s the most neutral of any source because of always being edited by both sides. Anyone that has looked at the background of Wikipedia knows this and if you disagree with thei pov, you can edit it. Yes, it’s more PC, but what’ s the point if I use a liberal view to fight a conservative one? Or vice versa? Any warring party knows to find the answer diplomatically, there has to be a neutral ground given.
All in all, I’m kind of sick of this debate. If anything this is the same context of men having the whole “pro-life/pro-choice” debate when the issue should be held by women (until we have to go through 9 months of crap, and tens of hours of pain, where our bones separate, I don’t think we have any right). I’m not gay. Are you? Yet you judge gay people from a straight pov. Great. I feel bad for many of my gay friends because it’s very similar to the way people treated me when I was little in a different manner. I guess some never actually can understand until they feel the whole subhuman treatment too.