Recently I was treated to an e-mail discussion with someone who resides in one of our so-called “Red States”:

You’ll find me pretty far right on all the other popular issues. I am one of the most hated men in the country. I am a white, conservative, straight, christian man.

Why do you think that makes you hated? I don’t hate you. Heck, I’m white and straight, too. And conservative and Christian ain’t necessarily bad things either, so long as they are actually practiced and not just preached.

The true definition of conservative is one who conserves, be it the environment, taxpayer’s money, or traditional values (as long as we’re talking traditional American Constitutional values, not traditional Biblical values). The true definition of Christian is one who aspires to be Christlike, by helping the poor, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and protecting the weak. I got no beef with Christians or conservatives, except for the ones calling themselves Christian Conservatives who are neither.

I don’t care what gay couples do, as long as they don’t do it in front of me or my kids. I don’t want to hear about it or see it.

So you actually DO care what gay people do, then, don’t you? As long as they behave in a way that you don’t find repulsive, they’re OK? Gay folks are OK if they are invisible?

I will be tolerant to a point, probably more tolerant than they would be of me and my values.

When did gay people attempt to keep you from getting married? When did gay people scream about you and your wife holding hands in public in front of their kids? When did gay people curse you, protest you, physically attack you, or discriminate against you? Seems like the gay folks have been much more tolerant of your lifestyle than you of theirs.

Although I have very strong feelings about this (some of my closest friends are gay; flamingly so), I may surprise you with one point: I hate the term “homophobic”. Literally translated it means “fear of homosexuality.” I don’t think you are afraid of gay people (“eek, a queer! Run!”) but rather you are physically repulsed by gay people. I think a more descriptive term would be “gay allergic”. You see or think of gayness and you have an involuntary mental and physical reaction.

And that’s OK by me. I don’t feel that “gay allergics” should necessarily be cured. Go ahead and be disgusted by queers. Keep them out of your church if you choose (I don’t think that’s Christ’s position, but I’m an atheist, so what do I know?) Tell your kids that they are sinful abominations destined for hell, it’s your right as a parent and a citizen.

But in the USA, we don’t let people’s personal distaste for a minority dictate the treatment of that minority in the eyes of the law. A majority of Southern Whites felt that black people were disgusting and repulsive and went so far as to make sure they drank from separate water fountains, entered through the back door, and attended separate schools, all so blacks would not have to be seen being equals “in front of me and my kids”.

This is the part where “gay allergics” discount the notion that homosexuality is akin to race. They’ll yell that homosexuality is a choice and race is not. This is where the discussion breaks down (much like abortion) because it is this one central point upon which both sides of the argument base their entire logic.

If you believe that gayness is an ingrained natural characteristic, then you cannot support treating gay people differently. If you believe that gayness is a psycho-social defect or lifestyle choice, then you cannot support treating gay people equally.

So, being the “Radical” I am, I like to force people on both sides to think of things differently. Let’s suppose gayness is NOT an ingrained natural characteristic. Does it really change the nature of the argument?

Let’s say that I, Mr. Straight Man, wake up one day and decide, “hmm, you know what, I think today I’d like to dress up like a ballerina, put clamps on my nipples, and have sex with a cow liver in a Mason jar.” It’s all in the privacy of my own home, so by your position, I’m guessing I’m fully within my rights and you don’t care what I do.

Then let’s say I leave my home, still dressed up as a ballerina, nipple clamps still attached, and I’m carrying around a cow liver in a Mason jar. I’m pretty certain most people would have a measurable amount of distaste for me.

But should the law treat me any differently? Should I be fired from my job? Should I lose my housing? Should I not have legal protection for the people I love just because I choose to have weird sex? My point is that even if gayness is a choice, why should the law treat those people differently for making that choice?

That’s been my experience so far. I won’t agree with gay marriage because I believe that title (marriage) should be reserved for one man, one woman unions. Let them have legal unions, fine. Take the sexuality out completely and make civil partnerships that would benefit spinster sisters that never married or whatever. Just leave the title of marriage for us heteros. It means something to me in a religious, spiritual context, be tolerant of that.

Let me get this straight: Both gay people and straight people should have absolutely equal protection of legal unification and civil partnership, just so long as only the straight people call it “marriage”? That’s what this is all about, the defense of a word?

Again, we actually have a nugget of agreement on this. I don’t think government should be in the business of marriage, period. Marriage should exist in a religious, spiritual context only. There should be only a government recognition of civil partnerships — a legal framework of mutual support and benefits — which I would extend to straight couples, gay couples, or even polyamorous groups without prejudice. Straight couples can go to their church and get “married”, gay folks can go to their church and get “married”, but in the eyes of the law, both couples are merely “civil partnerships.”

Now, are you aware that most of the amendments that the states, including my own Oregon, are considering on this fall’s ballot actually oppose the very point you made above? You say that “marriage” is one man + one woman, but that gays should be able to get “civil unions”. However, the amendments would prohibit even the “civil unions” part. We would be permanently writing into our Constitution that these types of couples are to receive no equal treatment under the law. That’s just sad.

We can’t really get anywhere on abortion cause we won’t agree on the authority that I use for my personal conviction. I’ll throw it out here anyway. I believe that life begins at conception, and further, I live my life by following God’s top 10. I use “Thou shalt not kill” to conclude my position as a pro-life guy.

Where do I start? Well, first I think that no topic of discussion should be off-limits. Your personal convictions, as in the gay argument above, are yours and you have every right to them. But when it comes to the authority on which to base law, we must agree that authority is the US Constitution. After all, you use it as your authority with respect to gun laws, right? Nobody uses “God’s Top Ten” to support a gun rights cause; it’s all 2nd Amendment.

I’d be interested if you, as a “pro-life” guy who espouses “thou shalt not kill”, support the death penalty. Before you whip out “an eye for an eye” (which is actually a parable to plead for restraint in punishment), remember that since the reinstitution by the Supreme Court of the death penalty in the United States, 76 death-row criminals have later been exonerated of all charges.

So, “thou shalt not kill” is an absolute when it comes to a zygote that may or may not eventually be a human being (there are, after all, many things that can abort a pregnancy besides a doctor), but there’s some wiggle room when it comes to an actual human being who may or may not be a capital criminal.

Speaking of “God’s Top Ten”, I wonder which version you are referring to. You’d think it’s simple, but it’s not. See, the Protestants, Catholics, and Jews each have a different set. (See http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.pdf for details). And which set of Ten Commandments, the ones from Exodus 20 found on the first stone tablets that were smashed by Moses, or the ones from Exodus 34 found on the second set of stone tablets? I’m guessing it’s the first set, because no one ever mentions the Commandments about “All first born are mine”, “the feast of weeks”, “the fat of my feast”, or “seethe a kid in its mother’s milk”.

I went over this when Roy Moore was losing his Alabama Supreme Court seat for defending his six-ton graven image of the Ten Commandments. But let me repeat: the Ten Commandments (while perhaps a viable personal creed) are not the basis of Constitutional Law. To wit:

1) “You shall have no other gods before me” — not against the law, in fact, contraindicated by the 1st Amendment.

2) “Thou shalt not worship a graven image” — ditto.

3) “Thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vain” — ditto again.

4) “Keep sabbath day holy” — ditto redux.

5) “Honor thy father and mother” — a good idea, but not dictated by law anywhere.

Already, none of the first half of the Ten Commandments are laws in any way, shape, or form.

6) “Thou shalt not kill” — finally! A Commandment that is a law.. well, kind of. You can kill death row inmates (even retarded or minor ones in Texas!). You can kill attackers in self defense. You can kill enemies during a war.

7) “Thou shalt not commit adultery” — not actually in the Constitution and not even a law in some states. A half-point for this one.

8) “Thou shalt not steal” — OK, now that’s a law and in the Constitution (regulation of commerce and coin).

9) “Thou shalt not bear false witness” — another one that is a law.

10) “Thou shalt not covet” — not only not a law, but I’d argue the entire basis of a capitalist economy.

So there we go. Ten Commandments, but only 3.5 of them are actually laws.

To be consistent in my arguments, pro-choice means to choose very carefully who one beds down. I have never “had” a woman that I would not have children with. She wants a choice? Choose to keep your legs crossed honey! Don’t whore yourself out till he buys a ring and makes promises!

Wow! So women should remain virgins until married then. You never had sex with any woman who was not your wife, and then only after you were married, right? For even if you used a condom and she was on the pill, there is still a non-zero chance she will become pregnant.

Then of course there’s the extreme cases of a pregancy occuring in the cases of rape or incest. Here the woman had no choice or made a genetically disastrous choice. No abortions for them? What about cases where the life of the mother is in jeopardy? “Sorry, dear, you’ve got to die so that your offspring may live; what’s good enough for frontier women of the 19th century is good enough for you.”

Ignoring for the moment those extreme cases, you seem to have this feeling of retribution regarding abortion. Women who want one are reckless whores who should be forced at the point of a gun to suffer the consequences of their slutty irresponsibility. Gee, what a wonderful experience in store for the children of these women — “hey kid, you’re only here because your mom’s a slut and we forced her to bear you!” Let’s take someone too irresponsible to handle her own birth control and put them in charge of raising a kid.

Don’t get the idea that I like abortions and think every woman should go have reckless unprotected sex then get off scot-free with an abortion. Abortion is a painful personal decision; don’t think that women have them as if they’re having their teeth cleaned. It is a devastating act that has lasting impact on a woman’s emotions, spirituality, and body.

But government has no authority to regulate the private medical decisions a woman and her doctor make regarding her own reproduction. I believe that the rights of an existing human being take precedence over those of a potential human being.

Pro-life advocates confuse a zygote with a baby. Is a zygote “life”? Certainly, but lots of things are “life” and we have no problems killing them.

So there’s the philosophical side of it, now what about the practical side? No matter how much you’d like women to make an educated choice regarding who and how they bed down, you and I both know that some will not. Your stance is to hold a gun to a pregnant woman’s head and force her to give birth.

Many of these women will choose to have abortions even if it is illegal. Can you really argue that a return to the time of back-alley abortions, self-induced coat-hanger abortions, or even infanticide, is preferable to the situation today?

Here’s what I could support: Abortion is illegal, but every unwanted fetus is to be transplanted into the womb of a pro-life woman, and that child is to be adopted and raised by a pro-life family. What? It’s unfair to force someone to become pregnant against their will or to raise children against their will? My point exactly.

Environment is an issue that I think folks on the left think they are the only ones championing. There are some whackos out there that just can’t take things in moderation. I teach my boys to respect nature. We always carry out more than we took in. It’s become automatic for my boys to grab wrappers and drink cans left by who knows who as we walk along river banks or camp grounds. I think any responsible outdoors guy feels that way, whether left or right.

We are in agreement here. Most righties I know who are hunters, fishermen, campers, hikers, boaters, etc., have enormous respect for the wilderness and take personal responsibility for keeping it pristine. After all, who wants to defile their own playground? I too pick up wrappers, cans, and (to me, the most disgusting piece of litter ever created) cigarette butts when I go to the woods or the beach.

Blocking off huge chunks of wilderness for no human to trod upon is overkill. If spotted owls can’t live with humans or move to another tree, than its a stupid bird and a species too weak to live, let it die. On the other hand, if we soak a bunch of sea otters in spilled oil, there’s nothing wrong with capturing them and cleaning them up to swim another day. These are random thoughts, don’t try to make sense of them in sequence.

I agree somewhat. Over 90% of the earth’s species have become extinct — we didn’t kill ’em all! And man is a part of nature, too. Some species may be incompatible with the existence of human technology. We should do all in our power to preserve the diversity of species, but we should also accept that our primary responsibility is to our own species and regardless of all efforts on our part, some species will go extinct.

However, we need to be clear about “blocking off huge chunks of wilderness for no human to trod upon.” I do believe that we should have wilderness untouched by the hand of man. I like that we can hike out to a place and not see a road, a car, a telephone pole and wires, that we can see the land as it was in a completely natural state.

Still, I’d let people go in there, to hunt, fish, recreate (to a point, for example, I don’t support limitless snowmobiling in Yellowstone). Where I get concerned is when we start talking about corporate interests. I don’t believe in selling off wilderness so Boise Cascade or Hunt Brothers Mining can make an even bigger profit than they already do.

I always approach this issue with the mental picture of the early Americans crossing the Great Plains by railroad, leaning out of their rail car window and picking off bison with a rifle, just for the fun of it, leaving the carcasses to rot. You don’t see too many great herds of bison anymore.

Immigration! Now that’s a topic! Why won’t my candidate take a stand on that one? Why won’t yours? Because of the Latino vote? They would risk our lives to pander to a small percentage of people who probably don’t even have a legal right to vote! If I say this out loud, of course I’m a racist, RIGHT!?

Not automatically. But what do you mean by “risk our lives”? Are the Mexicans coming to kill us?

Personally, I’m very libertarian regarding immigration. I think people should be free to cross our borders and contribute to the American society with a minimum of paperwork and hassle (just enough to discover whether they are criminals or terrorists). Every time in our history that we’ve had a mass wave of immigration — Irish, Italian, Jewish, Chinese, Mexican — it has benefitted our society. Immigrants have always taken the shit jobs that no one here wants.

Do you really want to lock down the borders so that only a trickle of legal immigrants get through? Have you ever worked a fourteen-hour day stooped over picking onions in the 100-degree sun for less than minimum wage? Do you foresee unemployed white kids signing up for that job?

Umm, no. I love sharing ideas with other Americans. Just be one before you settle in here. Learn the language, go through proper channels, take an oath, and come in and melt. This is supposed to be a melting pot isn’t it? Well get with it and MELT already!

A lot of what you’ve written here seems to be predicated on the stance, “I like queers/women/immigrants just fine, as long as they behave like I want them to.” I don’t think that’s homophobic, misogynistic, or racist; I think it’s just a longing for homogeneity. Like, maybe, Japan. Lots of people there who all look and act alike, who all speak the same language. Ugh, not for me!

Although I will throw you another bone of agreement: I don’t necessarily disagree with English-only laws. I’ve got no problem with the government picking the language of the majority and using it as the only language for doing business. I think it would even open up a new market for entrepreneurs who’d supply translation and document services for immigrants.

For example, we make it so English is the only language that the government will use to print and administer driver’s tests. Fine, just so long as we open up for private companies the right to print and administer (with government oversight) driver’s tests in Spanish, Korean, Navajo, or whatever. Our tax dollars only support English documentation, but all citizens can now pay for the right to participate in our society in their own language.

(I fight with other lefties on this one, because the only alternative I can see is printing every document in an ever-increasing amount of languages. Other countries have language laws, though most foreign countries are at least bilingual.)

Finally, I’ll disagree with your characterization of America as a “melting pot”. I think of America more like a vegetable beef stew. The whole dish has a particular yummy taste, but it wouldn’t be as good without the separate and distinct ingredients.

One of the things I like most about living in Portland is that when I get on our fabulous mass-transit light-rail system. I’m going to see people of many ethnicities speaking many different languages to one another. I’ve even learned some Spanish (“Puertas a mi izquierda. Tenga cuidado cruzar las pistas.” or “Doors to my left. Use caution when crossing tracks.”)

Enough! I’m getting a beer and watching MASH before bed. Next time I wanna write about computers. We have lots more in common there!

Yeah, I agree. I’m not going to change your mind and you’re not changing mine, but isn’t it at least interesting to learn where the other side is coming from? We’re both genuine patriots who love our country; we just form our views from a different set of assumptions. Doesn’t that feel better than the “you’re a bunch of bigots” that my side usually spews and the “you people hate America” that your side usually spews?

I actually think one of our problems is that there are no new frontiers left. Used to be that if you didn’t like the culture you lived in, you could move somewhere across the continent and set up your own. (“Utah, I’m looking in your direction…”)

When you look at the electoral map, it’s quite easy to see that there is a divide between us red and blue staters. I wish that we could be a bit more Federalist in our government and that the States were more autonomous. We could have legal gay marriage, gun control, abortion on demand, multilingual documentation, free immigration, clean rivers and forests, and roadless areas, and you could have straights only, free guns, birth by coercion, English only, locked down borders, corporations polluting at will, and timber and mining interests running roughshod over the wilderness. Then we could let it ride for twenty years and decide which states turn out better. 😉

OK, so political issues truce, eh? (Maybe we should have a Point-Counterpoint article? I can present my long-winded commie pinko diatribes, and you can respond with “Jane, you ignorant slut!”) We can move on to…

Computers (why is virus detection, spyware prevention, and firewall not an automatic part of Windows? Let Micro$oft package anything they want into their operating system! MP3 downloading and sharing is not theft; it is the best thing to happen to the music industry since radio.)

Sports (Go Packers… please! Go Blazers… to basketball-not-criminal court! Baseball? Boring! Soccer? Makes baseball exciting. Boxing? Federalize the commissions and let the fighters fight; enough of these TKOs)

Television (reality shows suck, TV news sucks, Dr. Phil both sucks and blows, censorship of Janet’s boob sucks, plastic surgery shows that reinforce women’s negative body issues suck.)

Youth culture (pull up your goddamn pants! Nothing spells “self-esteem” quite like shrapnel embedded in your face, kid. Don’t depend on school to educate you, have some initiative. Voting age, then thong panties, not vice versa.)

Music (Rap music — like Chris Rock says, I like it, but it’s getting harder to defend. Country music — I love it, it’s too bad that no one records any of it anymore. Britney Spears is a stripper with a recording contract. Modern Hard Rock — what are you kids so mad about? Whatever happened to just partying hard and singing about sex and drugs?)

    ____________________________________________________________________

   |                                                                    

_  | "RADICAL" RUSS BELVILLE | Read More at http://radicalruss.net/blog/  

  | Portland, Oregon U.S.A. | Permission is granted for reprint of this      

  | © 2004 by Russ Belville | post, as long as this footer is included.