Media Matters: Incendiary rant exposes Dr. Laura (again)
The year was 1998, and radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger's celebrity was soaring. A media group had recently paid $71.5 million for her program -- the biggest radio deal at the time -- and the Los Angeles Times reported that she had the "fastest-growing show in radio history, a program now aired on 450 stations in the United States, 30 in Canada -- where she is the No. 1 talk radio personality -- and in South Africa." Schlessinger would soon begin discussions on hosting her own national TV show.
Just a few years later, Schlessinger began to stumble. In 2001, her syndicated Paramount television show was cancelled after a brief run, and in 2002, the New York Daily News reported that Schlessinger's radio audience had lost several million listeners.
Schlessinger's troubles then -- just like now -- began with incendiary remarks aimed at a minority group. During the 1990s, Schlesinger blasted "homosexuality" as "a biological error," "deviant behavior, a dysfunctional behavior," and linked gay men to pedophilia and child molestation. Schlessinger also touted "therapies which have been successful in helping a reasonable number of people become heterosexual."
When Paramount announced it had signed Schlessinger to a TV talk show for the fall of 2000, the group StopDrLaura.com successfully "waged a campaign to dissuade companies from sponsoring the show." Dr. Laura debuted to "disappointing" ratings and Paramount "had difficulty attracting national sponsors to the show," forcing the studio to sell ads at reduced rates (LA Times, 9/22/00).
In the spring of 2001, Dr. Laura -- to no one's surprise -- was cancelled. Schlessinger blamed the cancellation on gay rights groups such as StopDrLaura.com and Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), telling Larry King that "political correctness" "overpowers and overwhelms the United States of America today. ... This was strictly about trying to destroy my voice." Schlessinger defenders claimed that critics were trying to silence her "1st amendment" rights.
Nearly ten years later, the same controversy over Schlessinger played out again -- this time over racially tinged remarks to an African-American caller.
To give you a refresher, during the August 10 edition of her program, Schlessinger took a call from an African-American woman seeking advice on dealing with the resentment she felt when her white husband didn't speak out about racist comments his friends made. During the discussion, Schlessinger used the n-word 11 times, and told the caller that she had a "chip on [her] shoulder." Schlessinger added that "a lot of blacks voted for Obama" due to race and said that the caller shouldn't "marry out of [her] race" if she didn't "have a sense of humor."
After Media Matters posted audio of Schlessinger's racial rant, groups such as GLAAD, Women's Media Center, and UNITY Journalists of Color joined Media Matters to hold Schlessinger's "advertisers accountable and find out exactly where they stand."
Like in 2001, Schlessinger appeared on Larry King Live to claim that her "First Amendment rights have been usurped by angry, hateful groups who don't want to debate. They want to eliminate." Schlessinger announced that she was ending her radio show to "move on to other venues where I could say my piece and not have to live in fear anymore that sponsors and their families are going to be upset, radio stations are going to be upset, my peeps, as I call them, are going to be upset."
Some conservatives predictably rallied around Schlessinger. Michelle Malkin lauded Schlessinger for having "battled political correctness for years." Sarah Palin -- who's scheduled to join Fox News colleague Glenn Beck at his 8-28 rally to "reclaim" the civil rights movement -- defended Schlessinger's n-word rant by claiming Schlessinger has been "shackled" by her critics, and took to Twitter to tell Schlessinger, "Don't retreat... reload" after her "1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist."
The First Amendment argument is as silly now as it was ten years ago. "Censorship, in the legal sense, really only occurs when the government is trying to prevent you from saying something. I think that actions that GLAAD has taken regarding Dr. Laura is the way we in the American system expect the system to work, and Dr. Laura has a right to say what she's doing," explained Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press executive director Lucy Dalglish on the June 15, 2000, edition of PBS's NewsHour.
The purported media critics at NewsBusters, meanwhile, bizarrely accused Media Matters of censorship because we were part of a campaign targeting advertisers. The criticism is strange considering NewsBusters and its parent, Media Research Center, also target advertisers of content they view as offensive. Indeed, MRC president Brent Bozell told the LA Times in 2000 that while he didn't approve of the anti-Dr. Laura cause, "It's perfectly acceptable for an organization to lobby to cancel a program they think is inappropriate. I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all."
At the end of the day, however, Schlessinger's racial rant is only the latest in recent public displays of racially loaded rhetoric by right-wing media figures. The question, as it was in 2000, is whether the audiences will hold figures responsible for their rhetoric.
Shouldn't the GOP be paying Fox?
In April, Rupert Murdoch, the chairman and CEO of Fox News parent company News Corp., responded to a question from Media Matters' Ari Rabin-Havt by stating that he doesn't "think we should be supporting the tea party, or any other party." Yet on Monday, Bloomberg News reported that News Corp. contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. The large donation caps off more than a year and a half of pro-Republican activism during the Obama administration by Fox News hosts, reporters, and "political analysts."
Because it might be hard to keep track of Fox News' pro-GOP activism in all 50 states, here's a brief recap:
- GOP fundraisers / events. Fox News hosts and "political analysts" have frequently spoken at or hosted fundraisers or events for Republican organizations and candidates. Recently, Fox News employee Dick Morris -- who's received money from GOP parties -- announced that he's planning to stump for more than 40 Republican candidates.
- On-air endorsements. Fox Newsers regularly make on-air endorsements for Republicans. Fox Business host Eric Bolling, for example, told viewers they could "save" the country in 2012 by putting "a Republican in there. Turn it over in 2010."
- Endorsing statements. Fox Newsers regularly release statements in support of candidates through their political organizations or social media accounts. Sarah Palin, for example, makes endorsements through her Facebook page, while Mike Huckabee endorses candidates on his Huck PAC website. Fox News has promoted both Huckabee and Palin's outside ventures.
- Behind-the-scenes / campaign roles. Last year, Dick Morris worked as a paid consultant for unsuccessful Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos. Fox News contributor Karl Rove, meanwhile, has been offering campaign advice to Republicans, such as the House Republican Conference and Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul.
- Political fundraising groups. Fox News hosts and contributors are raising money for Republican candidates and causes using political action committees, 527 and 501(c)(4) organizations. These fundraising groups are also promoted on Fox News.
- Frequent softball candidate promotions. Fox News has frequently opened its airwaves to promote Republican candidates such as Republican gubernatorial candidates Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell, and Senate candidates Marco Rubio, Mark Kirk, Scott Brown, Sharron Angle, and Rand Paul. Angle summarized Fox News' friendly haven for GOP candidates when she suggested that she prefers to appear on Fox because they let her raise money.
- GOP in exile. Fox News boasts a long roster of possible 2012 presidential candidates on its payroll, such as Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. Fox News, in turn, gives them exposure and air time while they decide whether they want to run for office.
- GOP issue advocacy. Fox News has frequently pushed conservative misinformation about the Obama administration and various other issues. Perhaps most notably, Fox News became the voice of the opposition against health care reform earlier this year.
- GOP events advocacy. Fox News has heavily promoted pro-Republican and anti-Democrat events such as the April 15 Tax Day Tea Parties, the Tea Party Express bus tour, and Rep. Michele Bachmann's anti-health care reform rallies.
As The Daily Show's Jon Stewart noted, "If anything, the Republicans should be paying Fox News millions and millions of dollars."
This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Media Matters research fellow Eric Hananoki.
you wouldn't happen to have any handy would you? because i'm sure this little rant of yours makes your feel all smart and stuff but without those facts to back them up, well, you appear to be just a moronic little person saying what your handlers have told you to say.
btw, capitalizing a few words here and there don't make them facts.
Maybe that's why so many will say that liberalism is a mental disorder. Since liberals claim to be tolerant of others, yet viciously denounce anyone who doesn't accept their ideals lock-stock+barrel.
tolerance: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
It's not a matter of "tolerance" - it's a matter of truth vs. lies. And your posts are nothing but right-wing lies.
(BTW, the majority of pedophiles are straight men, FYI.)
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-people/member-groups-sections/glbt-advisory-committee/ama-policy-regarding-sexual-orientation.shtml
By the way, the homosexuality/pedophilia link has been debunked over and over and over again - so if you are looking to pull your head out, maybe click on a few of the links. There are dozens more.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/homosexuality-and-pedophilia-the-false-link
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/explaining-pedophilia
Since you repeat the tired old talking points, I suspect you aren't interested in facts.
He's like a sad clown hiding behind the smile,pathetic and broken.
I admire your position, but Floyd has consistently shown that he neither cares nor is willing to listen to any sort of reasoned debate. Any attempts to do so is usually met with more of the same outrageous, ignorant comments. Best thing to do is ignore him, and like a petulant little child, when he sees that he is not getting the rise he so badly desires, he'll fade away.
I don't see where your attempt to psycho-analyze using left-wing blog posts as the guide could ever produce an accurate portrayal of anyone.
Pedophilia doesn't require physical action to complete the diagnosis. Simply wanting to or thinking of doing that would make the diagnosis of pedophilia complete. Pedophilia is diagnostic label that refers to a psychological attraction.
Do you agree?
what-- he neither cares nor is willing to listen to any sort of reasoned debate.
Is that an attempt at "reasoned debate"? I wonder how I got that reputation, considering that I often offer debatable statements, but you liberals ignore them and whine about 'troll this, troll that' because I don't agree with your stances on any given subject. If you want to actually step up to the plate and have a discussion, by all means do it. Simply complaining that a right-winger has the gumption to post on your pride-full web site is ... well ... whining. And that is something I've found liberals to be VERY good at.
what-- when he sees that he is not getting the rise he so badly desires, he'll fade away.
Truthfully, these subjects only stay available to comment for a couple days. If I don't time them correctly with work and weekends, I do miss out on some replies that I'd like to make. But, if you want to interpret that as me 'fading away' that is fine. You gotta do what you gotta do to continue your hatred of anyone different than yourself.
One thing was proven by your statements. That liberals will name-call and whine about ANY opinion that doesn't agree with theirs ... without even offering an explanation of how they differ.
I posted links to established web sites including the APA, AMA, WebMD, and peer-reviewed periodicals. You have offered none.
I await your reply.
Here is a dictionary description of pedophile, is that enough fact for me to say what it means?
The "link" is that both are sexual deviances. That's my stance. I'm sorry you don't like it.
BTW, your analogy made no sense what-so-ever.
Well, if that's the way you feel, so be it. I don't feel that way and am not trying to convince you of anything. I am simply stating my opinion and you can decide to agree or dis-agree.
Fair enough, but I am trying to persuade you to consider the fallacies in your argument. We can, I hope, agree to disagree civilly.
Homosexuality IS a deviant and dysfunctional behavior. FAIL
there IS a link between homosexuality and pedophilia/child molestation. FAIL
homosexuality is a CHOSEN lifestyle, just like pedophilia is. FAIL
Batting average .000
It's cute how you think that because my opinion is different than yours then mine is automatically wrong. Perhaps, one day, your tolerance will allow others to choose what they want, also. Because I'm not saying people can't choose to be homosexual if that's what they want. I'm simply placing them in a category they fit in.
It's a lot like bank robbers who don't want to be lumped into the single category of 'thief' with pick-pockets. They may not like who they are lumped in with, but they are what they are.
You are entitled to your opinion, but when one's opinion is shown to be inaccurate in fact, then the opinion is for sh!t. If the opinion holder, when confronted with facts cannot countermand or ignores them, well then it calls into question if all of his/her opinions aren't for sh!t.
You have not brought any FACTS. You have brought opinions of scientists. What actual FACT did they present that will stop all arguments about homosexuality being choice or natural occurance? And, if they presented those facts why is there still doubt among the other half of the science world?
My only reason for mentioning this is that it appears that homosexuality occurs "in the natural world." And, Floyd, I swear to God that I didn't put 'em up to it.
Must be the detrimental influence of watching MSNBC or something.
Now, if they are doing that because you are watching too much msnbc, then perhaps you should cut back on all that hatred being promoted by ALL the shows on that channel. I personally don't know what's on that channel since I don't have cable. But, all the left-wingers say it's nothing but racism and hatred, yet for some reason more Americans watch that channel than other channels. Maybe left-wingers are simply living in the wrong nation and need to leave so real Americans can enjoy what they want without all the fake concern for tolerance.
The position of the nation's leading professional medical groups on homosexuality and pedophelia constitute established science and directly counter your opinions. This does not by itself end argument nor will it erase doubt, however for the THINKING man, it establishes a basis for informed opinion. You continue to opine sans ANY science-based evidence. You also now put forth the logical fallacy that just because some believe (even "half, for which you also provide no evidence) that this constitutes the center of debate. This further shows your reasoning skills to be fundamentally flawed. Unless and until you offer facts, you have proven yourself to be an opinion troll on whom I will waste no more time.
But, I don't claim that some scientists making their claims equates to ALL scientists, like you are. Like I said, you have not brought FACTS from those scientists, only opinion. I guess that makes you the same kind of troll you call me.
Note that it does NOT say "a homosexual adult who is sexually attracted to young children."
Do you have to work at appearing as dumb as you do?
OK, Floyd, do what you have to do.
We queer folk comprise only 10% of the population. If you don't like us, you don't have to go to our clubs, or frequent our bars. You don't have to be friends with us. We're easy to avoid. Some of your friends may be gay, but they're closeted around you, because you're so outspoken in your bigotry.
Why should you even care what we do in the privacy of our own bedrooms between consenting adults when the economy is bad, and the US is in an everlating war?
Glenn Beck actually is getting hammered by the far loony right, because he said that abortion and gay marriage aren't the biggest problems in the US. For once, I've got to agree with Beck!
But, I fully understand that liberals on this site are hateful and mean spirited. They cannot have one decent conversation without stooping to name-calling or denigrating my opinion. I guess you are who you are and you do what you do best.
fab-- Why should you even care what we do in the privacy of our ...
Interesting statement, right after you call me a bigot for being opinionated. What do YOU care what WE do in the privacy of our ... blah blah blah ? Do you think we aren't affected by the war or economy? Apparently, you think anyone who doesn't agree with YOUR opinion is a BIGOT. That isn't very tolerant of you considering what you expect ME to be tolerant of.
Homosexuality IS a deviant and dysfunctional behavior. Why would she care what left-wing-militaristic-social-deviants have to say about that? The only thing that makes that opinion unreasonable is the lefts continued denial that there IS a link between homosexuality and pedophilia/child molestation.---Floyd
My response is to shake my head,laugh and call it what it is hateful rhetoric from a pathetic little man, your facts provided the proof. lol.
Stupid is fashionable these days. Intolerance is considered sophistication.
Actually, it's ALWAYS been socially acceptable to say the most vile things about gays. (Although the Right has taken a hard backslide into open racism lately.)
Had the republicans listened to us in 2003, we would have never thrown over $1 Trillion down the rabbit hole in Iraq. I haven't heard anyone on the left fear-mongering about Israel attacking Iran because of the construction of a nuclear power plant. Take a look in the mirror because I never voted for Bush.
If a retired teacher is a social deviant, this is news to me. The social deviants are in the Republican Party. Two of them are in the Senate, still voting on laws that affect all of us, Vitter and Ensign. Many of them are still running loose in the country causing mayhem wherever they go: Palin, LaBarbera, Fischer, Gingrich, McCain, Rove, Dr. Laura, to name a few
A link between homosexuality and pedophilia?
Your lack of experience in dealing with people who have a different lifestyle than yourself is on full display with this comment. During my long teaching career we had many lesbian and gay teachers, and get this. NONE of them ever molested any kid. Those teachers who were accused of pedophilia were ALL heterosexual males.
Are Craig, Foley, Rekers pedophiles?
Get our heads out of our rear ends?
This is rich coming from someone who supported the last administration in destroying not only our economy, but the world economy. Liberals were screaming from the sidelines in protest, and we were told to sit down and shut up, it's not "patriotic" to not support the president and political party that is currently in power.
Something could be worked out to correct the problem?
You are nuts. There is no problem associated with being gay, lesbian, or trans-gendered, except those that people like yourself create because of your hatred and bigotry. And besides, who made you chief investigator of what happens in the privacy of peoples' bedrooms?
Homosexuality is a CHOSEN lifestyle, just like pedophilia?
Nope. Again, you don't know enough about either subject to comment beyond trying to impose your worldview on others. Each one of us is born the way that we were intended to be born as to sexual orientation.
Oh? Which democrats were against the invasion, in 2003? I know that NONE were against it in 1999, in FACT some were calling on Clinton to do it. But, please do provide the names of those opposed to the Iraq invasion in 1993. From what I've found only a small number opposed the invasion
cug-- NONE of them ever molested any kid.
I guess that shows you don't know what you're talking about. Pedophilia isn't the ACTION of molesting children (under 18), it's the thought of it. But, you're so smart I didn't need to tell you that, did I?
cug-- Liberals were screaming from the sidelines in protest
Yeah they were screaming that not enough homes were being sold to those who couldn't afford them. THAT'S what they were screaming! Now, WHO caused the financial meltdown?
cug-- And besides, who made you chief investigator of what happens in the privacy of peoples' bedrooms?
WHEN did I say I was? If you can't handle a comment by a wacky right-winger without getting all bent out of shape, then perhaps you should stay out of the conversation. If you have something constructive to say, by all means say it. However, continual whining about me even posting is getting quite old. Bring some substance to your rants or accept that your opinion is no different than mine ... an opinion!
cug-- Each one of us is born the way that we were intended to be born as to sexual orientation.
Like the many demands of my claim otherwise, of course that statement is based on facts, right? Or, is it just opinion? Since many of you say my opinion is wrong because there are no facts to back it up, then perhaps you would like to prove your opinion as correct using some facts to back it up. Well, would you?
Seriously, many gay people don't want to be surrounding by screaming rugrats. It's one of the perks of the "lifestyle.":)
BTW Being under 18 is classified as being a child. I don't think "rugrats" is the same thing.
Seriously, Floyd, why would you say such a horrible thing? First of all, I was raised Catholic and have nothing but respect for the wonderful priests in my family church. What in the world makes you think that "you liberals think every Catholic priest is a child molester"? You're terribly mistaken. That you use this fantasy about what "you liberals think" in order to justify your own homophobic prejudice is really quite sad.
Every time I hear a liberal whine about God, I think of how intolerant they are. Yet they claim to be the party of tolerance. I wonder if that counts as being hypocritical?
Try asking. It's more polite than relying on prejudice and stereotype.
And every time you don't hear a liberal "whine about God" do you take the time to notice that not all "liberals" have the exact same opinions and rhetorical styles?
I love this...not a direct admission, but as close as you can get to outright saying "I don't know what liberals think". This statement comes after many other statements espousing "You liberals think...", etc. So which is it...do you know or not?
Now, about the matter of "facts" you keep asking for, Webster's defines a fact as "Something with real, demonstratable existence". Now, let me give you an example of a fact; gravity. But, according to both your statements, and that of the dictionary, gravity is not a proven fact. Gravity operates differently at the quantum level, and therefore cannot be proven to exist in the same manner at all levels. However, the reason this neither makes the "fact" of gravity a matter of debate nor calls it's existence into question is that I can repeatedly demonstrate the effect of gravity 99.9999...% of the time (that, and not many still have a personal belief system that precludes them from believing a demonstrated experiment, as it relates to gravity). Basically what I am trying to say is that according to my understanding of your worldview, there is no such thing as a fact, because nothing can be proven a full 100% of the time.
Conservatives, which of the above do you endorse ?
That being said, many will brand me to be an intolerant, discriminatory gay-hater. We are called to love and respect one another, but we don't have to agree.
There are those among us who want nothing more than to keep Americans arguing about homosexuals and atheists. Fanning the flames of such cultural differences serves the power-broker's interest of keeping our eyes off the ball. While we are distracted, the plutocrats are continuing to consolidate their power, wealth, and control of the world's resources.
So let's stop fixating on Dr. Laura, who in the grand scheme of things doesn't make a difference anyway, and get back to how conservatives/Republicans (and who knows, maybe Democrats) are misguiding us 13 trillion dollars down the hole? If you're worried about a few comments made by some Republican so you can have your laughs (which is what this entire article amounts to anyway), then you need bigger things to worry about.
Again, Floyd, you're doing a brilliant job of undermining OpenSource's argument: there are, in fact, very few traits common to "ALL" animal species (or living species of all kinds). And in that case, the few natural universals that remain do nothing to help evaluate homosexuality among humans. If one claims that the human species is sui generis, then one cannot simultaneously criticize any human behavior as unnatural by looking to universals in the nonhuman natural world. At least, not rationally and logically.
Vyotsky did an excellent job of explaining why your free will argument is irrelevant to the point.
Also, I think the English language is rather limited in explaining this accurately. Such as the word 'love' instead of 'eros' and 'agape'. This could be applied to homosexuality as well.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html
It would appear that the wikipedia article you linked me is at odds with the national geographic one, as below I linked an exerpt from that very article to assert my point.
You found the sources to be contradictory? Well excuse wiki because most anyone can edit and place in there what they want so that is no surprise but even in the wiki source it says it's not conclusive and open to debate so therefore you cannot claim definitively it is unnatural or that males don't search out other males(which was refuted by the national geographic source).
So why would you even post the wiki article if it contradicts your further research? It's almost like you did a double-take and added afterward that anyone can edit it after it opposed national geographic? 2 professional biologists disagree according to their observations.
Here are some points I would like you to address before I continue, because it appears you're cherry-picking what you perceive to be 'inaccuracies' in my statements.
-Why are we fixated on Dr. Laura and homosexuality when we're 13 trillion in the hole?
-Do you agree that the term 'homosexual' is insufficient, as the term 'love' is insufficient in defining eros and agape?
I'am not fixated on Dr. Laura I'am respondind to post and a article about her that is not being fixated as you can see there are articles on other issues.
What is your point about love and ergos? If the english language is insuffcient to describe what is taking place in the anaimal world how can you absolutley conclude that gay sex is unnatural?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition or greetings.[21]
Which is my entire point. Also in this instance, there is one unwilling party between the 2 animals. Now lets apply this behavior in human society and you're looking at jail-time.
There is not an instance of males seeking male mates. This is what some humans do, and it is an unnatual act.
Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition or greetings.[21]
Excuse me for being blunt but that is pure BS and nothing but your opinion as the national geographic source I sited proves.
Of course it's a different context: they're animals. There's no reason to believe that they have the same faculties and degrees of reason, language, abstract thought, or rational motive that humans possess. And, as you maintain, they lack free will, so it's still not clear to me why you're looking to the nonhuman natural world for validation or condemnation of human practices. Again: by this logic, since animals lack language and religion, does this mean that human language and religion are unnatural acts against nature?
I appreciate that you genuinely believe what you're saying and that you're presenting your case honestly and with civility, but the case you're trying to make simply doesn't seem convincing and coherent. For example: if animal homosexuality is driven purely by a drive to assert dominance, then would you say that homosexuality among humans is perfectly natural as long as it's only about asserting dominance? Furthermore, there's no reason to think that domination isn't a key motivating factor in heterosexual animal behavior. And, of course, certainly quite a few theories of human psychology maintain that human heterosexuality is, at its core, motivated by sadomasochistic impulses. So I'm really not sure how this helps your case.
Keep in mind also that there are rather famous cases of homosexual animal pairings that cannot be reduced to a simple expression of dominance.
Finally, I just want to reiterate my central criticism of your argument: you're trying at once to say that humans are nothing like animals by virtue of free will and morality, and that the nonhuman natural world actually provides the terms for evaluating human morality. I still don't see how you can reconcile these two positions. If you have object to homosexuality for religious reasons, I can understand; but to object for religious reasons that you seek to support with appeals to scientific knowledge of the natural world only undermines your argument.
Glad you're finally understanding our argument against homosexuality occurring naturally. The animals don't do it for gratification, like humans do. But, since when has a liberal cared about context when they make an argument?
vys-- then would you say that homosexuality among humans is perfectly natural as long as it's only about asserting dominance?
Would you say a group of men (or just one man) in prison who rape another prisoner are doing it because they are gay or because they wish to show dominance? Does that then make the catcher as gay as the pitcher? Since the reason for the sex is not regarded in your argument?
vys-- certainly quite a few theories of human psychology maintain that human heterosexuality is, at its core, motivated by sadomasochistic impulses.
One ultra-liberal who makes that claim does NOT equate to "quite a few". Do you have several links to back that claim? Or are you just making that up in a vain attempt to bolster your failing argument?
Who is the ultra-liberal you have in mind? I'm referring chiefly to Freud and his students, who I wouldn't exactly call "ultra-liberal". His theories on this point are spelled out quite nicely in Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905) and in his Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. But given Freud's influence, he's certainly not alone. You'll find puff pieces in Psychology Today (like this one) about sadomasochism in everyday relationships. And evolutionary psychologists still often take heterosexual sadomasochism as a starting hypothesis, as in this 2006 article.
Now, let me be clear that I don't subscribe to any of these theories. You seem to be mistaking what I criticize in OpenSource's argument and my own claims. For example, OpenSource is the one who claimed that homosexuality as a means of asserting dominance is more "natural" -- not me. I only pointed out the ridiculous implications of that argument, but you seem to think that I'm actually trying to defend his position. I'm not.
Floyd, I'm the one arguing that the actions of human beings cannot be evaluated by simply looking to the nonhuman natural world because, among other reasons, the context of human behavior is so radically different. I would really appreciate it if you'd actually engage me in conversation instead of your stereotype of me.
Exactly, Floyd: it makes no sense for OpenSource to argue that any human behavior is unnatural while at the same time maintaining that humans are distinguished from and incommensurable with nonhuman animals by virtue of free will.
I'm glad to see that you can recognize logical inconsistency, but I'm not sure why you're accusing Handsome Pete of this when HP was simply pointing out the flaws in OpenSource's argument.
I hardly think he is saying "incommensurable". But, yes, humans are distinguished from animals because of free will. So, it isn't a logical inconsistency, but rather YOU are taking his argument out of context and adding to it and giving him credit for motives not even being made. I think he is being quite consistent, but you are not.
How exactly did you come to the conclusion that homosexuality entails acts "against nature" or any "unnatural act"?
Breaking natural laws is physically impossible because that's what makes them laws of nature; human laws, on the other hand, are broken all the time, and because they're broken all the time, they come with punishments. So I take it that when you say homosexuality goes "against nature", you don't actually mean the physical laws of nature, because that would be a contradiction in terms. Instead, I take it that you think that something about the nonhuman natural world suggests that homosexuality goes against a supernatural creator's will.
Fair enough... except that homosexuality is found in the nonhuman natural world, so that doesn't work out so well for you. On the other hand, language and religion are not found in the nonhuman natural world, so by your logic, aren't those things clearly against nature? Aren't they profoundly unnatural acts?
You're welcome to believe that homosexual acts are not natural, but I'm afraid that the natural world disagrees.
As I asked pete, is there evidence of ALL species of animals exhibiting homosexual behavior, or only some? If only some, then your pretense of "found in nonhuman natural world" is lost. If it isn't present in ALL species, then there can't be a connection of natural v un-natural. Have ALL species of animals been studied, yet? Or just some of them?
Please take this up with the person who is trying to argue that some human acts are natural and some aren't. I'm not that person.
1) My position is that OpenSource's claim that human acts of homosexuality are "against nature" and "unnatural" is illogical.
2) In general, the conceptual opposition of "natural" and "unnatural" can refer to two different things, but they both undermine OpenSource's argument.
2a) If one conceives of "natural" as the sum of all physical laws, then obviously there is no act that is unnatural. In this sense of "natural", humans and everything humans do are just as natural as anything else in the universe, it makes no sense to claim that there's something unnatural about homosexuality.
2b) If one conceives of "natural" as the nonhuman world, then just one example of homosexuality among nonhuman animals would be enough to demonstrate that the behavior occurs in nature.
Yes, I made that point right after I tried to infer how OpenSource was conceptualizing "nature". You'll note that I had just written, "I take it that you think that something about the nonhuman natural world suggests that homosexuality goes against a supernatural creator's will." And if one conceives of nature as the nonhuman world, then yes, there are plenty of examples of homosexuality in the nonhuman world. And in that case, again, it makes no sense to claim that there's something unnatural about homosexuality.
3) The use of the natural/unnatural division to justify or vilify human homosexuality is what I was criticizing, Floyd, not what I was advocating.
No they don't... except when they do. Your argument has to account for homosexual pair-bonding and parenting among animals.
question: do you know what that means? just curious. the laws of nature are an objective truth. when you bring in your "creator" then the word subjective should be used and not with the word truth.
"this subjective opinion".
That same "divine power" also gives us the free will to choose what we want. Then, at the end, a determination will be made on your choices by that "divine power". Do you want to wait until you meet that "divine power" before you decide to act appropriately?
However, answering which THIS conservative endorses, it would be your skewed version of DR. Laura's opinion. However, to clarify, I think it is simply a deviant thought process that leads people to choose homosexuality as a lifestyle. But, it is chosen, just like any other bad habit.
Precisely. One can try to use a "natural / unnatural" categorical distinction, or one can appeal to a creator who endowed humans with free will. But if one tries to make both cases simultaneously, there's a problem: comparing uniquely spiritually gifted humans to the rest of natural world is pointless, because one has already assumed that part of human nature is liberation from the natural constraints that restrict other species.
Now, one can certainly argue that religious texts discourage homosexuality, but that's not the claim made by Dr. Laura that drew so much controversy. She framed her argument in the terms of strictly biological science, and she was simply wrong.
Two cheers for HomoCon. Not everyone who is LGBT is a lefty, Floyd.