JFK wrote December 8th, 2012 | 4:26 pm: “There’s something bracingly honest, for example, posts by Heather and some others. They oppose homosexuality–full stop. SSM isn’t (or isn’t only) a problem for them because of its departure from the Catholic ideal; it’s a problem because (if I understand their comments correctly) homosexuals are sick, dishonest agents who actively promote evil for themselves and others. “Anti-gay animus” isn’t a dismissal of their rationales; it is a description, just as we would all likely endorse something like “anti-disease animus” or “anti-crime animus.” ”
Heather replied (CENSORED):
JFK, if your mention of my name above is any indication of how you understand anything you read on here, then at least as it refers to what I write, there is probably very little that you understand correctly.
People who are promoting and doing harm in society and claiming they are doing good ARE dishonest agents.
To the extent that the harm is widespread and can also be quite violent, then we can correctly call it evil.
However, your objective in using the word “evil” above is to characterize your opponents as hyperbolic monsters like Hitler, Torquemada, or Phelps-like creatures – some sort of crazy, brazen witch hunters who tar innocent victims who have done nothing wrong at all, in order to fight not harm or evil, but black-clad EVIL.
Who is doing harm related to sexuality in society? Whose ideology is profoundly harmful when applied to real life? Your liberal ideology, which is supported by millions of heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals.
If there is something bracingly honest in highlighting this fact, there is something bracingly dishonest in your characterization that my criticism would apply only to people with a homosexuality problem.
That is, you refuse to acknowledge that doing harm related to sexuality depends on your ideology first and foremost. While a large number of people with a homosexuality problem have embraced very harmful ideologies and do real harm in society, not every homosexual thinks alike, or like you.
Furthermore, as stated, there are millions of “dishonest agents” who do not have a homosexuality problem, they are heterosexual or bisexual. You attempt to narrow it down to a false exclusive target of homosexuals in order to construct your “conservative bogey man” who blindly “hates” homosexuals. And we can infer from your discourse that you stereotype these millions of people with a homosexuality problem as people who do nothing wrong in life or in society. Thus they could never be criticized for hating social conservatives and any social conservative criticism, or playing the victim while they perpetrate so much harm.
Lastly, about your choice of vocabulary, we come to the word “sick.” Do you call every person who has any type of complex ethical or psychological problem a “sick” individual?
Can you provide me with real examples – links to where you have done this? If not, why are you using the word “sick” related to what I write here, when I don’t use the word myself?
All in all, in your comment, I see a substantial failure to understand many of my most important points. I think your choice of vocabulary like “sick” can be correctly characterized as having an intent to demonize your opponents’ views.
Fred so very correctly wrote: “Ergo, anyone who disagrees with them must, by definition, be irrational, evil, or both. It’s not a tactic; it’s a deeply held–one might even by analogy call it a religious–belief. It is an essential element of progressive dogmatics.”
Just like when they distort what their opponents say. We really get the feeling that they are incapable of seeing where the distortions are. They believe their misinterpretation is the correct understanding. This is very different than understanding what an opponent says and not agreeing with it. It is outright misinterpretation.