Monday, June 13, 2011

Barefoot and Progressive--but not too Bright

Uh oh. The Tolerance Police over at "Barefoot and Progressive" have spotted our press release pointing out new gay rights language in the Kentucky Department of Education's Model Curriculum Framework. In the fearful sounding post, they accused me of being "terrified of gay people."

Okay. I admit it. They're right. That is why I wrote a press release stating publicly that writing the political agenda of gay rights groups into the state's education policies was a stupid idea, knowing that it would make every member of the Brown Shorts angry at me. Because I'm scared of them. That's why I did it.

I mean, that's what you do when you're scared of people, right? Publicly criticize them to their face?

Just one more piece of keen insight from the folks at Barefoot and Progressive.


Singring said...

Wow. Those folks at Barefoot and Progressive have a pretty strong case, Martin. Bot no - you're right: Writing a press release about two words in a 69 page document is exactly what someone would do who has no fear of gay people what-so-ever.

Calling a group of people who are promoting civil rights 'brown shorts' just because they are using their first amendment rights is of course another thing someone utterly unafraid would do.

Curtis Morrison said...

I have a question Martin. I'm a gay guy in Louisville that hopes to someday meet the right guy and adopt an unwanted orphan.

Then I hope to ensure that kid has every possible opportunity to have a better life than you or me.

Before now, I'd considered sending said kid to Highlands Latin School. I had a friend whose sent his son Shamus there and I was really impressed with what that kid learned.

But now I see you're affiliated with them, I'm nervous. Does that school also follow your philosophy of not acknowledging the concept of sexual orientation in print? Or are you "on your own" on this?

Thomas Aquinas said...

Sounds like Curtis is both afraid of Martin and seeking to bully him at the same time. Lovely.

At some point, Curtis, you may want to acknowledge that people of good will hold different opinions on the proper use of one's sexual powers, just as they hold different opinions on the proper use of one's culinary powers (e.g., some people find consensual cannibalism to be immoral, and some religions have prohibitions against eating shell fish and pork).

In light of the wide diversity on these matters, the correct approach is tolerance, which means that you don't try to bully people who disagree with you. This means that if gay marriage were to become the law of the land, those that believe that gay unions can never in principle be marriages should be accorded full respect. This means that a business owner should not be forced to give benefits to gay couples, and an apartment owner should be allowed to not rent to such couples either. After all, on the matter of sexual morality, people are all over the place, and each view can be rationally defended depending on the premises from which one argues.

Singring said...

'This means that if gay marriage were to become the law of the land, those that believe that gay unions can never in principle be marriages should be accorded full respect.'

Thomas, unfportunately what you are advocating here is precisely the kind of bullying you seem to dislike. If a certain action or behaviour becomes accepted and enshrined in law, then everyone who chooses to live in that society should have to abide by that law. If hotel owners can refuse to provide service to gay couples, then it is the gay couples who are being bullied because they are being treated with less resepect and dignity and simple equality than a heterosexual black couple or a WASP couple, for example.

If you want to argue that the hotel owner is being bullied because he has to agree to abide by the law if he wants to open a hotel in a country in which gay marriage is accepted, you ought to do a bit more than simply complain that his 'beliefs' or what have you are being disrespected. You will have to show in what way that hotel owner is actually being caused undue harm because of the law, so it can be weighed against the benefits of the law.

After all, a rapist could also claim that society is 'bullying' him because they tell him not to rape women when he himself - for whatever reason, maybe even religious reasons - thinks its perfectly fine to do so. I hardly think you would accept that as a reason for exempting him from rape or sexual assault laws, so on what grounds would you want to exempt people from a gay marriage law were it to come into force?

Martin Cothran said...


Unless it is an official press release from any of the groups with which I am involved, I speak on this blog always and only for myself.