I've written here at length on the passages in Paul which are considered to condemn homosexuality.

The Cult of Saul is one of the worst aspects of Christianity, for those who indulge. Some guy, who never met the Nazarene, claims to have had a vision and now every word from his lips is solid gold, and direct authority from God. If somebody did that today we would call him a schizophrenic and make sure he stayed on his meds.

Really, what differentiates Saul from Mohammed, Khomeini, Joseph Smith or David Koresh? I simply do not understand why he is given such crenence.

Paul was probably a guy named Paul, not a guy named Saul who changed his name. He never mentions, in any of his own letters, that he changed his name. He calls himself "Paulos" at every opportunity. If Paul had done something so drastic as changing his name because of his experience, he'd have mentioned it. Dude didn't lack a desire for self-dramatization.

The story of the name change only appears in the second-century Book of Acts. Acts is probably trying to authorize Paul - who as you note lacks somewhat a good story of his authorization - by connecting him to heroes of the Hebrew Bible like Abraham who changed their name upon receiving a calling from God. This reads to me as literary artifice rather than history.

I will say that many of the problems folks have with Paul are really more problems they have with Acts and other readers of Paul. Paul did not condemn Judaism as mere following of the law - he states very clearly, "the law is holy and the commandment is holy and just and good". My reading of Paul (following on scholars like Krister Stendahl and John Gager) is that he believed that Christ had not instituted a new religion at all. Rather, he believed that the death of Christ, God had created the opportunity for Gentiles to enter into the covenant through a new pathway. He doesn't at any point reject the validity of Jewish belief and practice for Jews - he just thinks there's another way for Gentiles. (And for some Jews.)

It's with Acts that you see the anti-Jewish Paul emerge, the Paul who preaches to the Jews and is rejected, and then condemns them for their unbelief. In Paul's letters, he's only preaching to Gentiles, and he's not preaching to Jews that they should "convert."

There are other aspects of Paul that I don't think can be "rescued" - his stuff on sex and gender, obviously - but Paul isn't quite as bad as he's made out to be on Jewish-Christian issues.

Really, what differentiates Saul from Mohammed, Khomeini, Joseph Smith or David Koresh?

All scriptures were written by somebody. Paul's no different in that sense from the writers of the Qur'an or the Vedas or the Torah, or from Joseph Smith or whoever else.

Paul is perhaps somewhat different in that he doesn't appear to have thought he was writing scripture. He was just writing letters. He thought people should follow his judgments, but that's not the same. That his letters became scripture is perhaps a little odd.

@147: It's a very unusual, but interesting approach to the issue.

I don't know: outing politicians who hold anti-gay policies sounds like poetic justice, but think for a moment: if politically principled, they are denying themselves the same rights they're denying everyone else.

They are, but they're still wrong to do so. I won't presume to read your mind and imagine how you see the issue in toto, but for a lot of us discrimination against gays is no different than discrimination against blacks. It's simply and completely wrong. That a black pol might argue for 'separate but equal' makes him no less wrong because he's black.

If there were a prominent Republican US Senator, let's say, who argued strongly against gay marriage while being himself gay … well, he can't ever get married, can he? It would be somewhat different if he lived in a marriage-rights state and got married, while actively lobbying against marriage rights; but if he walks the walk, isn't that OK?

I take your meaning, but that this hypothetical Senator is discriminating against himself, punishing himself, in no way legitimizes his attempts to discriminate against others. I suppose we can pat him on the back for consistency, but beyond that he gets no slack.

I don't know what I think of all this myself. But to some extent, the various outings of Ed Koch, in the day, used to smack of the Left's notorious tendency to engage in circular firing squads. Weak as Koch may have been on gay rights at times, he was a heck of a lot better than a conservative Republican might have been, not only on gay rights but on a ton of other issues that his outers were interested in.

I won't argue for how the left dealt with Koch, but in that regard I don't want to be hamstrung and kept from opposing the right's recent attempts at vote suppression just because Joe Kennedy bought Chicago for his golden boy. I also think that outing is grotesque unless it's specifically to expose hypocrisy wrt gay rights.

Civil rights are so important that when it comes to undermining the credibility of those who want to limit civil rights, I'd err on the side of the strategy that enhances rights, even if there's some unpleasant fallout. Limiting civil rights is a big, big deal. It's no different here than telling black people they can't marry each other. At the risk of unnecessarily complicating the argument, imagine if Bull Connor had a black mistress. Wouldn't it legitimately undermine his credibility as an opponent of civil rights to make that fact public? Doesn't it cast a useful and revealing light on Jefferson to acknowledge and publicize his relationship with Sally Hemings?

.

Incidentally, I've been in coed dressing areas before and refrained from looking at the other people while they were in states of disrobe / managed to avoid sexualizing them; it's part of showing people a base level of respect. Does that seem unrealistic?

I'm not sure. I can practically always refrain from looking at a naked woman that I find attractive so that I do not make her uncomfortable. I cannot avoid sexualizing a woman I find attractive, clothed or unclothed. It's lizard-brain stuff.

They are, but they're still wrong to do so

Absolutely. I'm simply for debating someone on the merits, not ad hominem.

I can practically always refrain from looking at a naked woman that I find attractive

Man, how often do you find yourself in that situation? Lucky guy :)

@157--I used to swim a lot, and one afternoon I showed up at my local college for my regular laps. There had been a swim meet, and there was a new, small, easy to overlook, handwritten sign on the men's locker room door that said, 'women's changing room for meet'. I instinctively turned away, but then, being young and ardent, realized how easy it would be to walk in and pretend not to have seen the sign. In I went, into a room full of fit young women in their early twenties, many with broad shoulders, and in varying states of undress and dampness. I made a mental photograph, 'oopsed', and politely backed out. It was interesting, but hardly sexy. Naked women doing this and that ordinary chore of grooming and dressing under bright locker room lighting is engaging, but not arousing. There's a reason we have lingerie, and dim lighting and soft music.

@156--okay, but I'm not sure revealing a fact is necessarily an ad hominem attack. It can be done in order to reveal hypocrisy and undermine a position. It would be, well, odd, for a gay rights group to be credited with an ad hominem attack for asserting that someone was gay.

Man, how often do you find yourself in that situation? Lucky guy :)

These days, not so much. Although it happened on occasion when I was working on a play.

Naked women doing this and that ordinary chore of grooming and dressing under bright locker room lighting is engaging, but not arousing. There's a reason we have lingerie, and dim lighting and soft music.

Maybe we're just wired differently. An attractive naked woman could be reading a book or folding her clothes and I'd find it arousing.

That other stuff is kind of like garnish to me; I never really mind that it's there, and it looks nice, but it isn't at all necessary to my enjoyment of the meal.

Fair enough. I think I may like the softening that suggests a romantic connection until there actually is a real emotional connection. Once the connection is there, my preference is for no "garnish" (good w.c.) at all. Huh. I hadn't thought about it quite like that before. It may also have to do with doing a lot of drawing and painting over the years. Much of the time I'm looking at a breast it's in light of solving problems of composition.

It might be related to why I've never been to a prostitute. I think I'd be embarrassed. I don't think money would be enough to give me permission to touch. In the absence of an emotional connection (which creates its own permissions and openings and assents) it would feel transgressive, not sexual.

It might be related to why I've never been to a prostitute. I think I'd be embarrassed. I don't think money would be enough to give me permission to touch. In the absence of an emotional connection (which creates its own permissions and openings and assents) it would feel transgressive, not sexual.

I've never been to a prostitute either, but I don't think I'd have much of a problem with it. As long as we're not in some sort of coercive environment, it seems like a perfectly reasonable transaction, like getting a massage. And like a massage, of course it's better when there is an emotional connection, but it isn't necessary.

Street prostitution sort of creeps me out, though.

It would really be a smart move for A-Rod to come out right now

"Roids turn you gay" might be the most effective campaign to get (most) athletes to stop using them. :-)

Hey Jack, remember that thing where I apologized? That was, assuredly, a mistake, and I retract said apology.

176. Jack Carter, International Man of Minstrelry Posted: January 15, 2013 at 07:30 PM (#4347847)

I'm sure there is. Like I said, I wasn't deploring that generation (never remotely suggested it, afaict). Outside my family the 17-25 cohort doesn't seem any more or less bright than they ever were. I remember at that age being appalled at what a lot of my cohort was into. The only difference, now versus then, seems to be in attention spans.

Also, I tend to date women 20 to 30 years younger than I am, and there's no shortage of bright, quirky, interesting women out there.

"Tend" is not "once or twice". My use of "frequently" was as dead on as I could get without actually quoting you, lying scumbag that I am.

Everything else, go ahead, whatever with the names and punches, as you are correct that I threw an elbow regarding accepting your view of sexual politics and rape. (I only wish I had done so without being internet snarky about it, that's lame.) I personally think your nostalgic recollection of deliberately walking in on undressing women offers further verification for my lack of acceptance. Have whatever last word you desire, but as this flame war is pointless and a flame war, following that you have my word it won't ever be brought up by me again.

I also stand by my characterisation of a guy who deliberately walks into woman's dressing rooms, and constantly talks about rape as creepy, which was what started all of this.

Post 158 is so many kinds of ewwwww.

As far as I can tell Mikael, pointing that out makes you a stalker.

I don't know: outing politicians who hold anti-gay policies sounds like poetic justice, but think for a moment: if politically principled, they are denying themselves the same rights they're denying everyone else.

My point was essentially that closeted gay politicians who support anti-gay public policy DO NOT deny themselves the same rights they deny non-elite gay people.

Suppose we have a hypothetical closeted gay legislator -- let's call him Lohan Cracker -- who publicly crusades against gay people, fights against marriage and tries to prevent any non-discrimination legislation from being adopted. Meanwhile, while he's taking these public stances, Mr. Lohan Cracker is busily banging his baggage handler every night, knowing it won't cost him his professional career as a politician because he's just so special and it would just be so impolite for the media to bring it up. Meanwhile, non-elite gay people around the nation have to live in fear that if THEIR employer discovers they're gay THEY might be out of a job if their employer (or landlord, or school district) doesn't approve -- in large part because of the actions of Mr. Cracker.

If Lohan Cracker chooses to make other people's sexual orientation a public issue, then his own sexual orientation is every bit as much a public issue.

The more I think about it, the more I think Eso's right.

If you believe in the principle that an individual has the right to his or her sexuality, that it's no one else's business, then it doesn't matter that the gay politician is acting against his (and other homosexual's) interests. That bastard may not deserve the right, but he's still got it (in the same way a bigot has a right to free speech).

That bastard may not deserve the right, but he's still got it (in the same way a bigot has a right to free speech).

And the non-bigot also has a right to free speech and it very much is the people's business to decide whether or not people making policy are qualified to make policy.

A closeted homosexual backing or writing law that discriminates against homosexuality is clearly writing or supporting a law to appeal to some special interest group or base instead of doing what is in the best interest of all his constituents and that should be questioned.

A closeted homosexual backing or writing law that discriminates against homosexuality is clearly writing or supporting a law to appeal to some special interest group or base instead of doing what is in the best interest of all his constituents and that should be questioned.

I'm not saying we have to keep quiet about his position on the issue. I'm saying that we should do that without delving into his sexuality.

This thread done got weird.

If you believe in the principle that an individual has the right to his or her sexuality, that it's no one else's business

A politician who supports discriminatory legislation is basically saying that one's sexuality is one's employer's business, or one's landlord's business, or the government's business.

He should be held to the same standards he holds the rest of us to. And the public is his employer.

It's at the same level as anti-abortion politicians discreetly slipping their daughters out of the country for "rest" if they get into trouble. That kind of stuff needs to be outed, too.

I'm not saying we have to keep quiet about his position on the issue. I'm saying that we should do that without delving into his sexuality.

I'd think the question of why is a gay man writing law against homosexuality to be a pertinent question. Why is the elected official deliberately deceiving his constituency?

He should be held to the same standards he holds the rest of us to.

If you believe in the principle that the individual has a right to privacy concerning his sexuality, then we should treat him the same way we treat everyone else.

Is he being hypocritical? Absolutely. But if you out him, then so are you.

Politics ain't beanbag. If you want to remain in the closet, don't seek massive political power and the ability to make laws limiting the rights of millions of fellow citizens.

There's also the case here of folks like George "Rentboy" Rekers. He has been a major activist and organizer in the so-called ex-gay movement. The fact that he isn't actually ex-gay at all is entirely relevant.

Oh well. Life is full of contradictions and short on absolutes.

If you believe in the principle that the individual has a right to privacy concerning his sexuality, then we should treat him the same way we treat everyone else.

If he directs his legislative efforts against the codifying of that principle, thus subjecting non-elite gay people to discrimination, then he has abdicated his own right to privacy on the issue.

If it's kosher to out someone to demonstrate that they're hypocrites, is it also OK to out someone to demonstrate that they're self-serving?

Doing something against your own best interest is not necessarily hypocritical. The job of a politician isn't to to do what is in his own best interest, he is supposed to represent the will and/or best interest of his constituency. Were liberal politicians, who supported letting the tax cuts for the top income bracket expire hypocritical?

If a politician believes his constituents want anti-gay legislation, then working towards that does not make him a hypocrite, even if he personally opposes them.

I am obviously extremely pro-equality, but I can't fault a politician for "pandering towards his base". That's his job, and makes him a politician, not a hypocrite. I fault the base in those instances.

If he directs his legislative efforts against the codifying of that principle, thus subjecting non-elite gay people to discrimination, then he has abdicated his own right to privacy on the issue.

That's interesting, who is the arbiter of when people have abdicated his own right to privacy? Is this open to all groups when talking about their opponents? Or is this yet another tactic that's acceptable for only those in the progressive national front and nobody else?

I don't have much problem with the personal lives of politicians being less than perfectly private. That's just part of the deal. It's been part of the deal for as long as there has been politics, which is as long as there has been human society.

If you want to keep significant aspects of your personal life private, you can go into any number of non-political fields of work.

I don't have much problem with the personal lives of politicians being less than perfectly private. That's just part of the deal. It's been part of the deal for as long as there has been politics, which is as long as there has been human society.

What about activists and lobbyists?

That's interesting, who is the arbiter of when people have abdicated his own right to privacy?

Through his support of discriminatory measures, he's stating, "Gay people should have no expectation of privacy regarding their sexuality when it comes to their employer."

This politician should simply be held to the exact same standards he wishes, through law, to impose on other gay people. Anything short of that is rank elitism.

If he values his privacy so much, maybe he shouldn't be supporting such legislation.

There had been a swim meet, and there was a new, small, easy to overlook, handwritten sign on the men's locker room door that said, 'women's changing room for meet'. I instinctively turned away, but then, being young and ardent, realized how easy it would be to walk in and pretend not to have seen the sign.

Wow, talk about a transgression.

The same thing happened to me once, though, except in my case it was inadvertent rather than deliberate. I belonged to a club that had only one locker room with showers, so the club alternated the shower room between men and women. They would put a big sign out in front reminding those entering what day it was. But, me being me, I forgot what day it was and blew right in, failing to look at the sign. As soon as I entered, and I saw a handful of women in various states of undress, I muttered "oops" and turned around and left. Later, at least one of the women complained and the club manager went around and asked who the transgressor was. Since I immediately turned around and left, the women in the locker room only got a look at the back of my head as I was leaving and couldn't identify me. No way was I going to give myself up either. Maybe what I did was a little spacy, but I never intended to transgress on privacy.

On top of that, it was a really stupid system, to switch the locker rooms like that. They were just begging for stuff like that to happen. From what I understand, it was a recurring problem. I wasn't the only one who made a mistake like that.

Through his support of discriminatory measures, he's stating, "Gay people should have no expectation of privacy regarding their sexuality when it comes to their employer."


Again, who decides when it's acceptable? And does it cover people being self-serving, in addition to hypocrisy? And is this tactic available to non-progressives, such as myself?

This politician should simply be held to the exact same standards he wishes, through law, to impose on other gay people.

That's an argument that a politician who's secretly gay and against gay marriage should be outed if he receives special access to gay marriage that other gay people do not have access to. Unless he's in favor of laws simply making being gay illegal, he is, in fact, holding himself to the exact same standards, he wishes, through law, to impose on other gay people. That's not hypocrisy, that's acting against what you feel is in his self-interest.

What about activists and lobbyists?

Working in politics is a continuum. Part of the price of power is increased scrutiny. The more power you have, the more scrutiny you'll receive. There's no way around it, as a matter of fact and history.

I'm not a fan of the social norms by which a person who has an extra-marital affair can be disqualified from political power, but the problem there is the social norms, not the increased scrutiny that comes with holding great power in a (relatively) democratic society.

I don't have much problem with the personal lives of politicians being less than perfectly private.

I don't have a problem with that either, in the general sense. We are all human. I do have a problem with uneven application of the law. I have a big problem with being held to a certain standard of behavior by lawmakers who never intend to meet that standard themselves, and who get to skate due to their privileged position.

Working in politics is a continuum. Part of the price of power is increased scrutiny. The more power you have, the more scrutiny you'll receive. There's no way around it, as a matter of fact and history.

OK, so let's say someone testifies before Congress specifically for the purpose of advocacy of specific legislation. Would it be justified to point out, specific to the person testifying, if their personal lives indicate hypocrisy or personal gain from the legislation in question?

I do have a problem with uneven application of the law.

You still haven't explained how a gay politician against specific gay rights is practicing an uneven application of the law. You haven't argued for outing gay politicians for being hypocritical, you've argued for outing gay politicians for not acting in what you believe is their self-interest. As Fancy Pants argued above, if Gary Gaybasher is proposing legislation against gay marriage but secretly gay, he's also disqualifying himself from gay marriage, which makes him possibly acting against self-interest, not hypocritical. Is it proper to out homosexuals simply for not acting in what you believe is their best interests?

OK, so let's say someone testifies before Congress specifically for the purpose of advocacy of specific legislation. Would it be justified to point out, specific to the person testifying, if their personal lives indicate hypocrisy or personal gain from the legislation in question?

Actually, this is fairly common. A lot of congressional advocacy testimony comes from people with their own personal stories or cases.

I would love to see this happen as a broad standard. I think the potential upside far exceeds the downside.

The same thing happened to me once, though, except in my case it was inadvertent rather than deliberate. I belonged to a club that had only one locker room with showers, so the club alternated the shower room between men and women.

When teaching Penthouse Forum writing at Naughty America University, Professor Richard Hurtz uses this as his strong lead exemplar.

Actually, this is fairly common. A lot of congressional advocacy testimony comes from people with their own personal stories or cases.

I would love to see this happen as a broad standard. I think the potential upside far exceeds the downside.

And do non-progressives have access to this tactic? I need to know, because there will be future discussions in these political threads.

A politician who supports discriminatory legislation is basically saying that one's sexuality is one's employer's business, or one's landlord's business, or the government's business.

Okay, but what counts as "discriminatory legislation?" Is being opposed to gay marriage enough? Are you aware of the fact that I know a number of gay males (both out and closeted) who are opposed to gay marriage for various reasons that have nothing to do with self-loathing or hypocrisy, but rather policy and religious beliefs? If one of them happened to be a closeted gay politician, would you declare their private life "fair game" for shaming and humiliation simply because you've made your own subjective determination that their religious or policy objections aren't legitimate, but are rather "discriminatory?"

I tend to think that you would. Which is *exactly* the problem I'm talking about. You should have no right to make that determination. There is, IMO, an appallingly fascist element to that line of thought: better stay in line and agree with the Approved Position, or we will do everything we can to impose Serious Personal Consequences upon you if we can. The mere fact that you believe your cause to be self-evidently righteous (and that your behavior is therefore honorable as opposed to rather thuggish) only means you're like pretty much every other person who has attempted to justify such actions.

And do non-progressives have access to this tactic?

Just a quick question. I don't know where you live, but I was under the assumption that it wasn't under a rock, on Mars, with your fingers in your ears. Right?

Of course everyone has access to this tactic.

Personal hypocrisy does not disqualify a person from holding a position, and neither does self-interest. These are things we have to evaluate and judge when considering political positions.

You still haven't explained how a gay politician against specific gay rights is practicing an uneven application of the law.

Let me try this again...

If a gay politician supports anti-gay discrimination in the workplace (which, by definition, means that your employer can factor your sexuality into employment decisions), then this gay politician, too, should be subject to the same standards. And in his case, his employer is the public. So his sexuality is as relevant to HIS employer (the public) as a gay person's sexuality is to his/her employer. No more, no less.

Don't like that? Don't support discriminatory legislation.

And, I think it's productive to out all hypocrisies, on both sides of the spectrum. Sunlight is good. A liberal politician who preaches Wall Street reform and receives payments from brokerage houses should be taken to task for that.

Self-serving? Knock yourself out. But the political effect of these things is minimal -- ALL political action is self-serving to some extent.

As Fancy Pants argued above, if Gary Gaybasher is proposing legislation against gay marriage but secretly gay, he's also disqualifying himself from gay marriage, which makes him possibly acting against self-interest, not hypocritical. Is it proper to out homosexuals simply for not acting in what you believe is their best interests?

Is this really relevant for a Republican senator though? If Gary Gaybasher made public his intention to marry his gay partner, he would lose his job the next election. So marriage for him is off the table for him anyway, even if it were legal in his state. In fact, his gaybashing might be one of the reasons he has his job in the first place. Call it the Cohn-Hoover Effect.

Of course everyone has access to this tactic.

I just want to make sure in the future. I've had posters here cry foul every time one points out the amount of carbon pollution certain politicians and celebrities are in favor of.

If a gay politician supports anti-gay discrimination in the workplace (which, by definition, means that your employer can factor your sexuality into employment decisions), then this gay politician, too, should be subject to the same standards.

So, you would *not* be in favor of outing gay politicians for voting against gay marriage?

I've had posters here cry foul every time one points out the amount of carbon pollution certain politicians and celebrities are in favor of.

That's because it's a bad argument, not because you've committed a moral offense. Personal hypocrisy doesn't invalidate a political position.

The question here is whether the knowledge itself should be off-limits. So if anyone says to you, "Dan, by looking into Al Gore's use of plane travel, you have committed a moral offense against Al Gore's right to privacy", I will defend you against that idiot.

The question here is whether the knowledge itself should be off-limits. So if anyone says to you, "Dan, by looking into Al Gore's use of plane travel, you have committed a moral offense against Al Gore's right to privacy", I will defend you against that idiot.

We've had people argue that it was *inappropriate*. Also when pointing out rich Democrats who don't sent their kids to public schools. I am bookmarking this thread, so in the future, I can have a bipartisan defense against those people.