The Montana Family Coalition wants Queer Eye  SEP 11 2003

The Montana Family Coalition wants Queer Eye for the Straight Guy off the air. Displaying excellent family values, executive director says: "A really good reality show for gay people would be five gay men dying of AIDS."

There are 72 reader comments

kavi19 11 2003 5:19PM

i'm not gay, but that's just ignorance.

webgurl44 11 2003 5:44PM

what do you expect from a bunch of back woods, ass-backwards people? guess it's a good thing they are isolated from the rest of the population in Montana.

brian56 11 2003 6:56PM

honestly, what decade is this? can someone explain to these people that if you don't like the show, THEN DON'T WATCH IT.

Bob03 11 2003 7:03PM

Montana is not a bad place. Who knows maybe she is from California and moved to Montana to get away from it all and in her spare time between raising Satan's children she started the coaltion. But beware these people are not isolated from the rest of us. Sadly they are everywhere.

soulonice11 11 200310:11PM

Ignorance is clearly on both sides of the fence.

Confuzzled41 11 200311:41PM

Yes, the ignorant side and the err, smart side...

ryan14 12 2003 5:14AM

Honestly, it's not about ignorance. It's about bigotry, and THAT is definitely on both sides of the fence. You can say you hate homosexuals, and I'll (quite rightly) be able to call you a bigot.

And when I tell you I hate your church-going, mayonaisse-eating, shit-heeled ass, you can tell me the same.

soulonice22 12 2003 8:22AM

I know plenty of non-church going, smart, articulate, urbanites who are against homosexuality. Are they stupid, backwards bigots? Of course not, but they are entitled to their opinions and their beliefs without being dismissed as ignorant fundamentalists.

And people think conservatives are intolerant and hate-filled....

For the record, I am not a conservative (ick) and I support all my gay friends and family members.

ryan57 12 2003 8:57AM

soulonice: "... And people think conservatives are intolerant and hate-filled...."

what part of me saying that bigotry is "definitely on both sides of the fence" didn't you understand?

additionally, if we're talking about the Helena, Montana-based Montana Family Coalition, we are certainly not talking about "non-church going, smart, articulate urbanites." take a look at their home page (http://www.montanafamilycoalition.com/index.php) and see how many times the words "God" and "Family values" crop up.

to be clear, let me say that i'm certain there are homo-hating doctoral candidates in every metropolis of our fair land. they're more than welcome to call me a bigot for hating their over-educated, under enlightened asses.

Pierce30 12 200310:30AM

"soulonice: I know plenty of non-church going, smart, articulate, urbanites who are against homosexuality. Are they stupid, backwards bigots?"

Maybe they're not stupid backward bigots but they're certainly deserving of contempt. Just because someone is smart and an "urbanite" doesn't make them entitled to hold any opinion they like unchallenged. Opinions which engender hate should always be challenged.

Pierce41 12 200310:41AM

I amend that last sentence to say:
"Opinions which engender hate against morally sound groups that in no way harm society as a whole should always be challenged."

Schmelding48 12 2003 1:48PM

Liberal tripe.

soulonice55 12 2003 2:55PM

ryan, chill out. I didn't say you specifically were hate-filled and intolerant, although now I might be inclined to.

pierce, why is an opinion against homosexuality engendering hate?

KJC47 12 2003 3:47PM

soulonice: I can't speak for pierce, but I think saying "A really good reality show for gay people would be five gay men dying of AIDS" is pretty hateful...

Beth09 12 2003 4:09PM

"I'm hearing from people left and right that every time they turn on the TV, it's something to do with gay people. It's not reality." Since when does television have to reflect reality? It's entertainment, and while I've never seen the show, it sure seems to entertain a lot of people.

no53 12 2003 4:53PM

KJC, try to follow along, soulonice is not talking about the montanans

WhatNation29 12 2003 6:29PM

In is unfortunate the Montana Family Coalition does not respect freedom. Certainly members of such an association would be far more comfortable in a totalitarian and controlled society headed by the likes Stalin.

Free22 12 200311:22PM

I think "A really good reality show for gay people would be five gay men dying of AIDS" is an evil thing to say. And if they really believe it, they are ignorant. That is a fact which cannot be argued because many gay men live without AIDS. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when you try to change the world to your liking, you are taking away the rights of others. I'd like to say that Freedom of Speech is meant for the things you probably dont like. The reality is that you see what you want to see. They see gay as bad, so they ignore anything good about it. I am sorry to say that i wrote this. I choose to ignore this war and go on with my life. Mainly because I don't believe their "coalition" and every other one like it will get very far against gay rights. Lastly I'd like to repeat the words of "Brian" If you don't like the show, then dont watch it!!!

brian30 13 200312:30AM

well if i might add something without having my head torn off, but isn't the real problem that people are expecting tv to raise their kids? they expect tv to be their kids moral and psychological guides, and that is just stupid.

Corb55 13 2003 3:55AM

What I find rather amusing about our nation is that people forget that if they don't like to watch, listen or look at something, they can get off their lazy asses and change the channel, turn off the tv or radio or do something different. It amazes me that in a country where we have the freedom to say what we want, there are so many people that are ignorant to the constitution and believe that it only applies to whites, or heterosexuals, etc....Furthermore, it is interesting that religious organizations don't understand the difference between church and state. I didn't even know that Montana had cable. Beautiful place to visit but do people really have nothing better to do than to complain? Members of the Montana Family Coalition should be more concerned with teaching their children in their homes instead of relying so much on television to teach them everything about the world. As we all know, not everything on t.v. is real........

Pierce18 13 2003 7:18AM


"soulonice:
pierce, why is an opinion against homosexuality engendering hate?"

emmm.... ok. Homosexuals are a group that have suffered a lot from discrimination and prejudice. I don't have to tell you that. So, when people go around "having an opinion against homosexuality", they are adding to that discrimination.
Since a homosexual has no control over what he/she is, it is fundamentally a part of what they are. What if people decided to "have an opinion against" blacks, or jews?

This is really quite simple. Disliking homosexuals for being homosexuals is wrong. I'm open to clear concise arguments against this point.

soulonice36 13 2003 9:36AM

I know too many people who do think it is wrong - by whatever measure, yet who are loving and accepting of the gay people in their lives and who support their efforts to have equal rights as any other human being in their community. How is that hateful? With only two of the people that I am referring to is it a religious issue.

And not to go off on a tangent, but I think it's poor practice to compare the plight of gays with the struggles of blacks or other cultures. It really is. I'm not a big believer in "race" as a way to classify people but when you do, you're referring to groups of human beings who through thousands upon thousands of years of evolutions emerged as human beings with shared physical characteristics. Homosexuality is nothing like that. Being a homosexual is nothing like that. I am not making judgements on the validity of the gay equal rights movement, I am just saying it is not like the struggle of cultural or racial minorities in this country.

Pierce27 13 200310:27AM

"whatever measure"? What are you talking about? Yes, your right, that's not hateful, it just utterly insane.
"I think that what you are is wrong but I love and support you anyway." That doesn't make any sense. Seriously, what kind of double standards are we talking about here? If you think that something is "wrong", then you are not "accepting of it".
That's like, "Man I hate those British. Except for that one British guy I know. He's ok."


I'm not saying that gays have a similar historical struggle to blacks. Re-read the post. Why are you dropping back to the evolution of the human race? Of course homosexuality is "nothing like that". A prejudice is a prejudice no matter who it is directed at.
That's it. I'm done.

soulonice31 13 200312:31PM

You said if someone thinks homosexuality is wrong, they are engendering hate. I disagree. I even gave you some examples from my own experience, but you want to jump from hateful to utter insanity to prejudice.

"I think that what you are is wrong but I love and support you anyway." The point I am trying to get across to you (which you are obviously missing) is that this issue is not so black and white. You seem to think it's impossible to be against the act and not the person, fine, whatever. I'm saying not everyone thinks that way and a lot of people make the distinction between a person who has a sexual orientation toward people of the same sex and someone engaging in sexual activity with someone of the same sex. There is a difference. A lot of people when they say they are against homosexuality are talking about the latter.

Our society is full of double standards, prejudices and biases. Not a human being alive is guiltless and not a human being alive is incapable of complex emotions and feelings. So given that we are human beings and prone to have complex - and often mixed - emotions and prone to prejudge our world, it is not out of the realm of possibility that people can have different and conflicting opinions about something. People are complicated, what a concept...

That's like, "Man I hate those British. Except for that one British guy I know. He's ok."

Again, poor example.

"That's it. I'm done."

Good for you.

Fr8bearz30 13 2003 3:30PM

Soulonice-- if someone is opposed to homosexuality, the good news is that they don't have to participate. But, ANYONE whose "opposition" to homosexuality extends to actively trying to make things harder for those who identify as gay/lesbian/bi/whatever ARE absolutely guilty of hate and bigotry. Stop trying to excuse hate and ignorance just by saying not all are religious and/or idiots. The only way to oppose homosexuality and not be guilty of bigotry and intolerance is to keep your personally held belief PERSONAL. No one has the right, religious or otherwise, to make those kinds of decisions for a consenting adult.

soulonice28 13 2003 6:28PM

Fr8bearz: Soulonice-- if someone is opposed to homosexuality, the good news is that they don't have to participate. But, ANYONE whose "opposition" to homosexuality extends to actively trying to make things harder for those who identify as gay/lesbian/bi/whatever ARE absolutely guilty of hate and bigotry

Where did I say they weren't? You're talking about action. I am talking about belief. That belief does NOT always lead to that action regardless of how passionately anyone thinks it does. Obviously, sometimes those beliefs turn into hate and bigotry. This Montana group appears to be a good example of that. But one does not necessarily follow the other.

What I am saying and I'll say it again, is that just because someone doesn't approve/accept/support/whatever homosexuality DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE ENGENDERING HATE. That's my point plain and simple.

Now I'm done. Good for me. Time for football.

webgurl17 14 200311:17AM

I think you can compare the discrimination against black people over the centuries to the discrimination against homosexual people over the centuries. Homosexuality didn't just come about in the 80s.

Buffalo Will46 14 200312:46PM

It's hard to believe that "Christians" can take such barely disguised glee at the suffering of others. The Montana Family Coalition doesn't need to go into urban areas to learn about the lives of real gay people: they can just travel a little south into Wyoming, where my partner and I will be happy to show them how gay folks are living productive, satisfying lout-of-the-closet lives. By the way, how come people like the MFC are talking more about our sex lives than my partner and me? And hey, one more question . . . Montana country is almost as spectacular as Wyoming's, so what the hell are these folks doing stuck in front of the TV anyway?

OhTheBill54 14 200310:54PM

The more attention you give to these hate-mongers, the more they will revel in it. Just let them be. It's not like you're going to change their opinion, or they are going to change yours. It's just silly. Gays are not going to hell, and these types of people (montana kill the fag organization) aren't going to be anymore influential than the run of the mill wacko-christian organization.

Newfred43 15 200311:43AM

I speak as a gay man in Britain, which has similar splits on the issue of homosexuality to those in America; ie, the church is divided into two quite distinct camps - liberals championing gay rights, and conservatives maintaining scriptural arguments against.

I am an atheist and do not subscribe to a religion, but have been brought up surrounded by Christianity, but by no means have I been indoctrinated thereby. Religion interests me greatly, and I'm a student of Religion & Theology at Manchester University. I often feel trapped between a rock and a hard place on issues like this. On the one hand, I recognise the value, importance and social function of religion, and, for all the bad that comes out of it, I see also all the good that religions do in society. On the other hand, where would I be without gay rights? It is also my direct experience that I have no choice about my sexuality, and therefore, how can I come to respect any argument which says it is wrong?

What both sides of this argument could do with - both gay people and conservative Christians - is to concede that the people on the other side of the fence are not quite as stupid or simple as they think. Gay people often make the mistake of dismissing arguments against them as simple bigotry, or ignorance. Similarly, conservative Christians make the mistake of dismissing gay people as shallow, or perverted.

Of course, the day when this can happen will probably never come. The two arguments are fundamentally opposed to each other. But one thing that we, sitting on the fence for a moment, really should conclude is that neither side is stupid, or ignorant, but have different priorities in their world view.

If more people in the argument could adopt this kind of relativism, I think we would see a lot more mutual respect, and a lot less provocation and counter-provocation, which, history tells us, rarely solves a thing.

Julie Millam12 15 2003 6:12PM

Allison Farrell’s piece on “Queer Eye For the Straight Guy” in which I was quoted,
did not accurately portray the message that I communicated during our discussion.. This is not the first time that this has happened, but I feel I must respond.

Montana Family Coalition has always held the position that the homosexual lifestyle should not be glamorized because it is plagued with many serious health threats to those who practice it. We feel the onslaught of television shows that promote and glamorize this destructive lifestyle are irresponsible and lead young impressionable children to wrong conclusions.

Studies show that practicing homosexuality drastically shortens the lifespan of males due to HIV/AIDS. This is the “reality” that we need to portray- that sex outside of marriage is dangerous for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Montana Family Coalition is dedicated to educating people about these risks, hopefully REDUCING the number of AIDS cases. Let me be clear-I would never ,ever imply that I, in any way, would enjoy seeing someone die from AIDS. That would be tragic-That would be the antithesis of our mission at MFC. Our goal is to offer hope, restoration and healing for the homosexual through EXODUS International and other ministries that help lead the way out.We love the sinner but hate the sin. Many people successfully leave this lifestyle every year.

Unfortunately the “reality” of homosexuality is grave with its sexual consequences is something that we must face and then warn our children about. Our point is that “reality” TV is not reality, because it glamorizes a lifestyle and fails to warn of the grave danger people face. Whether it is “Queer Eye For The Straight Guy” or “Elimidate,” “Temptation Island” or any other television program that degrades abstinence and/or traditional marriage – it is offensive. People are simply fed up with this type of programming and are calling for responsible change.




William Rosen33 15 200311:33PM

Why is AIDS always associated with homosexuals? If you check your facts Julie Millam, you'll notice that the CDC has reported that the largest number of AIDS cases in the United States now is HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN, so before you start spreading your lies about the "health hazards" of the homosexual 'lifestyle', check your facts. Gay people cannot be healed by any of your tactics, we are perfectly healthy individuals without your HORRIFYING group telling us why we are at risk. I can tell you what risks I face: I face a world/society/groups like YOURS that tell me that my love is worthless. I am faced with threats almost on a daily basis on my LIFE because I love a person of the same gender. Why do groups like yours continue to try and stop LOVE? What is so wrong with loving another human being? You people should be ashamed of yourself for spreading lies, hate, and ignorance throughout. Shame on you.

William Rosen55 15 200311:55PM

Just for your information, the statistics that I have referenced I will reprint from the CDC website:

Between 1992 and 1999, the number of persons living with AIDS increased, as a result of the 1993 expanded AIDS case definition and, more recently, improved survival among those who have benefited from the new combination drug therapies. During that 7-year period, a growing proportion of persons living with AIDS were women, reflecting the ongoing shift in populations affected by the epidemic. In 1992, women accounted for 14% of adults/adolescents living with AIDS -- by 1999, the proportion had grown to 20%.

Since 1985, the proportion of all AIDS cases reported among adult and adolescent women has more than tripled, from 7% in 1985 to 25% in 1999. The epidemic has increased most dramatically among women of color. African American and Hispanic women together represent less than one-fourth of all U.S. women, yet they account for more than three-fourths (78%) of AIDS cases reported to date among women in our country. In 2000 alone (see chart above), African American and Hispanic women represented an even greater proportion (80%) of cases reported in women.

In 2000, 38% of women reported with AIDS were infected through heterosexual exposure to HIV; injection drug use accounted for 25% of cases. In addition to the direct risks associated with drug injection (sharing needles), drug use also is fueling the heterosexual spread of the epidemic. A significant proportion of women infected heterosexually were infected through sex with an injection drug user. Reducing the toll of the epidemic among women will require efforts to combat substance abuse, in addition to reducing HIV risk behaviors.

liz36 17 2003 5:36PM

Ms. Millam: Does that mean that lesbians are G*d's chosen people, seeing as their incidence of sexually transmitted diseases are dramatically lower than gay men, heterosexual men and heterosexual women? Just curious...

dan04 17 200310:04PM

having an 'opinion' on a given topic does not denote hatred by any stretch of the imagination.

questions regarding homosexuality:
- where is the research that conclusively proves that being homosexual is out of one's control? - a homosexual has as much ability to become heterosexual, as an upright honest person has the ability to become a compulsive liar, and/or vice versa. It's an deliberate personal choice - no-one is born gay - there is no genetic trait that determines homosexuality.
- the most obvious and blatant question has to be - can homosexuals procreate? Of course not. Because homosexuality is not what our bodies were designed for. Along with the inablility to preocreate, it must be noted that regular anal sex damages the anus to the point where it can no longer retain faecal matter, as is its primary function according to its design, and that person must therefore wear protective pads to prevent leakage.

God's chosen are precisely that. God choses who he pleases, based on his own determination, and not on anyone's decision to be homosexual, or to be a murderer, or to be a pastor, or to be a member of a community awareness program, or to never attend church, or to read the Bible. We have no say in who He choses.

Simon Wheatley37 18 2003 7:37AM

Further (UK) statistics showing that AIDs is not just a gay plague, and that irresponsible living affects people regardless of sexual orientation. Ms Mirriam, it seems wrong to pinpoint the sexual orientation rather than the sin to paraphrase your point.

"more than twice as many heterosexuals as gay men were diagnosed with HIV in the first half of 2003." (Statistics from UK Public Health Agency, a government body)

Comment: http://uk.gay.com/article/hiv/life/2153



jonno43 18 2003 2:43PM

having an 'opinion' on a given topic does not denote hatred by any stretch of the imagination.

Of course it doesn't, at least in this case - just a tremendous level of ignorance.

where is the research that conclusively proves that being homosexual is out of one's control?

Jury's still out on that one - just as it is regarding the question of whether homosexuality is a "choice". It may turn out that science will indeed determine someday whether homosexuality is out of one's control, just as it might find out that one is genetically predisposed towards making absurd generalizations about entire groups of people. Either way, "live and let live" seems like a pretty reasonable course of action.

the most obvious and blatant question has to be - can homosexuals procreate?

The most obvious answer: of course they can, and many choose to do so. You're conflating (male) homosexuality with one aspect of its sexual activity, one which many heterosexuals engage in as well.

If your issue is with nonprocreative sex as a whole, then so be it - you're entitled to your opinion. But castigating one group (i.e., male homosexuals) for a particular activity - and attempting to substantiate your opinion with such a ludicrously exaggerated example of its "consequences" - indicates better than anything that considering your views as indicative of an irrational hatred and intolerance isn't such a stretch after all.

phil03 18 2003 5:03PM

Our goal is to offer hope, restoration and healing for the homosexual through EXODUS International and other ministries that help lead the way out.We love the sinner but hate the sin. Many people successfully leave this lifestyle every year.

wait, i'm confused, is she saying many people [like, the founders, and spokespersons] of Exodus leave Exodus every year? i can't argue with that.

love the sinner hate the sin, yeah, what total B.S.

dan32 18 2003 5:32PM

I think the issue goes beyond the specificity of homosexuality.
It basically comes down to the fact that some people preach 'tolerance', 'tolerance', 'tolerance' across the board - but in doing so, paint themselves as monstrous hypocrites when they show themselves to be (sometimes violently) intolerant of of anyone else who is in the least bit intolerant.

And I must say that Christians who show any hatred toward homosexuals (or any one else for that matter) are guilty of breaching their second-most important Christ-given mandate : 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself' (The first being 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength')

Alienation, degradation and persecution are not manifestations of 'Love'.

jonno: two males are entirely unable to procreate without a surrogate woman, as are two females without a sperm donor.

Sam Kleinman20 18 2003 6:20PM

Often straight (tollerant people) say "live and let live."

It's compleat shit

Because what the enivitably mean is:

"Don't act gay around me and I won't kill you,"

As for procreation, two eggs can be fused to form a zygote, so women can reproduce without men. It's a technical possiblity, morality is the decision of those wishing to reproduce this way.

Newfred09 18 2003 7:09PM

Dan: Your assertions about the nature of homosexuality are not in accordance with most scientific and social indications.

- The direct experience of most gay people, and for that matter most straight people, is that they do *not* have any choice in their sexuality. This is supported by various scientific discoveries. It had been suggested by biologists that the lack of a hormone in a woman during pregnancy may explain homosexuality in some cases. Equally, given that percentage of population identifying as homosexuality has remained fairly constant throughout the ages, in spite of laws, TV shows, and culture, suggests that sexual traits are much more determined than some would have it. Your point rests on the assumption that morality is both a) a matter of choice and b) a matter of social integrity. The data regarding homosexuality strongly suggests that sexuality is not a matter of choice, and private relationships can hardly be expected to be labelled as socially damaging.



- a homosexual has as much ability to become heterosexual, as an upright honest person has the ability to become a compulsive liar, and/or vice versa. It's an deliberate personal choice - no-one is born gay - there is no genetic trait that determines homosexuality.

Many of your other points are simply incorrect, and informed by hearsay and biased material. For example, anal sex does not cause any long-term damage to the anus. Furthermore, your repeated recourse to Natural Law doctrine (design arguments, etc.) is deceptive and unhelpful. How do you determine design? Are the various purposes of our bodies not often in conflict? If two men are using their bodies to express love, which is in accordance with its 'design', then where is the Natural Law objection?

You need to get your facts straight and explore all angles of the methods of thought that you assume.

Eric36 18 2003 9:36PM

Sam, tolerance is not 'compleat shit.' As a society we need to be tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. We do not need to accept it, individually.

As like most people, I interact with gay people everyday; I would even call some of them friends. I tolerate their lifestyle, (i.e., it isn’t an issue in our relationship, they don’t preach their beliefs on me and I don’t preach to them) but I don’t accept it.

Isn’t that what this issue boils down to? Tolerance vs. Acceptance

PS -- I have never killed anyone, even those who have acted ‘gay’ around me.

dan49 18 2003 9:49PM


Newfred : what makes your assertions any more correct than mine?
I don't have some book of 'Natural Law' that I refer to - I mean really - the anus is designed to allow unhygenic biological waste to leave the body.
By design, regardless of any pre-defined 'Natural Law', and regardless of any moral or social aspects, it is potentially dangerous to go sticking your penis up someones anus - the penis can become infected as a result of the waste of the other person, and the anus just isn't designed to have things pushed up it, but rather pushed out.

Anyway, who are you(or anyone else) to tell me I should get my facts straight? - If I read you right, then I have every right to hold to whatever facts I wish. What is anyone's point of view if not an assumption based on their own knowledge and experience?

Joe25 18 200311:25PM

I knew those folks up there in Montana were close, but they're all from the same family? No wonder her attitude sucks.

A more honest gay reality show would be watching five of us putting up silently with all the BS we hear everyday about gays and still having to be nice to their rotten little brats and pay taxes to support their devil brood. AND, still be able to meet each other and smile and laugh about the humor of it all - knowing that it is these very uptight and righteous people will someday have a gay person in their family - that they love and will have to soften their heart, or die a little more inside when they can't.

dan34 18 200311:34PM


Its funny, hardly anyone here seems any less uptight and righteous than the them they're referring to.

Bobby00 19 2003 1:00PM

Honestly, people.

Despite being a white, hetero-married male, I embrace people of all types, despite race, religion, orientation, or culture, and we get along just fine. However, I have to say that some of the language used here by those opposed to the M.F.C. only aides to put you in a horrible light. I understand there is much anger that comes with being misunderstood and misrepresented, but it's up to each person to represent their cause in a dignified manner. When you speak of inbreeding, raising Satan's children, and shit stained heels, you're only representing yourself as being ignorant, which ultimately helps the other side's agenda.

Newfred34 19 2003 2:34PM

Dan: Read St Thomas Aquinas and you will realise that the argument you put forward is straight out of Catholic theology. Although I may never agree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.

If you are saying to me, 'Who are you to tell me to get my facts staight?", may I put it to you: Who are you to tell me that being gay and expressing my love for my fellow man is something I should be ashamed of?

I have not belittled or patronised the conservative Christian stance on this issue, because I understand its complexity. So please do not belittle me.

mike36 19 2003 2:36PM

Unfortunately the “reality” of homosexuality is grave with its sexual consequences is something that we must face and then warn our children about.

I believe Ms. Millam means promiscuous homosexuality, not merely homosexuality. I would imagine that her organization is against promiscuity as well, but as the show isn't titled "Promiscuously Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," it'd kill any chance of using AIDS as a scare tactic. Rather than trying to look like you're being compassionate, just come out and say it: You don't like homosexuality, and don't want to see it portrayed anywhere in a positive (or even neutral) light.

dan: You're running into the same logical fallacy here. I believe you mean to say that anal sex can be a health hazard. Once again, equating something harmful with homosexuality that may or may not be related. While I'd imagine that the majority of gay men who have sexual relations have anal intercourse, not all do. Nor do lesbians, obviously. Making the instant "homosexual equals anal sex" jump seems a bit misguided.

If you have issues because your religion says it's wrong to be gay, that's fine with me. Don't watch the show, make sure your kids don't watch the show, and communicate to your friends and family not to watch it. Just don't bother me at work about it, and don't try to get the government involved. The best way to bring people to your side would not be to take the show off the air, it would be to convert everyone to your religion. The show wouldn't exist if everyone had your beliefs, and if your system is truly arguably superior, then everyone will convert, regardless of what they see on TV. In the meantime, I find absolutely nothing wrong with it, and occasionally find it entertaining, so I'll keep watching.

mike39 19 2003 2:39PM

Oops. Sorry about not closing a bold on that last post. If someone who has some sort of administration rights wants to delete it, go ahead.

Kip17 19 2003 3:17PM

Sigh. Too much to respond to. I'll summarize:
* Tolerance is a good start. In the end, we should strive to understand and appreciate people for who they are.
* Fundamentalism (Christianity in America) is the main cause of bigotry -- towards women, blacks, and gays. This has been my experience, and many others' too.
* The question is: is homosexuality wrong? If so, why? Because they are different than you? Because God says so? Do gay people truly hurt you? How?
* Follow-up question: did you choose to be straight? Could you choose to be gay? I don't know anyone who has chosen to be straight -- and I don't know anyone who's chosen to be gay. See a pattern here?

Steve Rhodes39 19 2003 3:39PM

If the Montana Family Coalition really cared about people's health rather than imposing their own morality on everyone, they would support explicit storylines and PSAs about safe sex.

They'd also focus on smoking in media and the (cough) mostly Republican politicians who take money from the tobacco industry.

mikey47 19 2003 3:47PM

The flaw in the original article is equating homosexuality with anal sex. You can have one without the other.

dan08 20 2003 1:08AM

Whether we like it or not, a Christian believes in the words of the Bible. The Bible tells us that homosexuality(just one thing in a long list of other things), is an abomination to a holy God. That is what they believe, and I don't think anyone can expect them to denounce their beliefs, just as the homosexual shouldn't be expected to denounce their beliefs.

What we can do is challenge the Christian who shows an unloving attitude toward anyone who professes to being something that the Christian believes God disagrees with. The Christian is called to love their neighbour - regardless of whether or not their neighbour is living according to the Christian's own moral and spiritual standards.

I believe it is not an issue of acceptance/unacceptance, or even tolerance/intolerance. It comes down to love, and a loving attitude.
A good example of this might be the fact that I was able to continue to love my wife (more than I love anyone else) without having to tolerate, or even accept, her adulterous behaviour whilst she was involved in an affair(a situation which has since been resolved).

Newfred33 20 2003 5:33AM

Dan: What I am about to say is not intended as an attack on your or anyone else's faith, but is from mere curiosity. On the one hand you seem to opt for absolute scriptural authority on the matter, and on the other you seem to be making interpretations of scripture on what a Christian's actions should be.

If, by referring to scripture, you mean sections of Leviticus (which, by the way, Biblical scholarship tells us were probably written with direct reference to Jewish participation in Canaanite and Baalite fertility rites) then you seem to be ignoring the interpretation of that book, while having no qualms about interpreting New Testament material.

Is this not a conflict in many people's belief?

OhTheBill22 20 2003 7:22PM

Oh Dan, if you're basing your arguments about anal sex and the premise that homosexuals only have anal sex, you might want to ask your parents about that. If you are naive about heterosexuals having just as much anal sex as the gays, then you obviously are naive about the ways of the world. Straights do it just as often as the gays. Get a clue there, brother

dan24 21 2003 4:24PM

I wasn't actually refering to Leviticus. I was refering to what Paul said to the Romans, specifically Rom 1:27 and its surrounding context. And the passage I was thinking of regarding Love came from the same letter - in Rom 13.

I'm also not disputing the fact that anal sex in a hetrosexual relationship is no less harmful than in a homosexual relationship, or any less unnatural in the context of the above passage of scripture.

Newfred, your interpretation of my interpretation of the English language interpretation of the Hebrew and Greek interpretations of the events and records of scripture may not be entirely correct.

If there is no absolute truth, or absolute interpretation of anything, then what any one person believes is of:
a) no importance whatsoever, and therefore is no reason for anyone to get upset about what someone else believes; and
b) of no consequence, since whatever they believe is only relevant to them, and has no effect on what you believe and how you act.

So what is the issue, again?

Newfred35 22 2003 5:35AM

Dan: You imply that you give more credance to Paul's letters than to Leviticus. If this is true, how do you justify being selective about what to interpret and what to take literally in the Bible?

Acknowledging no truth as absolute is not necessarily a purely academic, or philosophical point. Surely it is a fine basis for promoting mutual respect and a level of humility in belief that so many people lack -- particularly fundamentalists of all religions and schools of thought. As Kierkegaard said, reliability of knowledge and belief can be asserted for practical purposes (what he called a hinge proposition), but surely this can be done while recognising that there is ultimately nothing to differentiate between two different positions?

I don't reject the validity of your beliefs in any way, and not assuming moral absolutism enables this kind of discussion to take place -- but that is no reason not to argue about subjects, however much of a superstructure our social and moral lives really are.

Natalie Davis27 22 2003 5:27PM

This is for Julie Millam: Did Allison Farrell of the Billings Gazette fabricate the sentence she quoted you as saying? Did, in fact, the words, "A really good reality show for gay people would be five gay men dying of AIDS," come out of your mouth during your interview with her? If so, you have no reasonable beef and people's comments regarding that statement are thoroughly just. As far as your message, I indeed understood what you were saying re: your opinion on what you might call "the homosexual lifestyle." But what you said -- if indeed those words came from your lips -- was vile, evil, inhumane, and unChristian. Your followup, which has appeared in a number of places, does not dismiss that horrid phrase.
So, did you actually say those words? THAT is the question. I will try and get in touch with Ms. Farrell to see if she has a transcript. (And, given that the Gazette is sure to have attorneys, I sincerely doubt that she would have printed such a thing if she and her editors were not willing to stand behind publishing such an incendiary statement.)

OhTheBill35 23 2003 9:35AM

What? Of COURSE she said it, that's the whole point of this whole debate. Her organization believes that homosexuality is wrong, immoral, and believes that they can be cured by the healing power of 'scripture'. I find it to be reprehensible and ludicrous that these groups have the audacity to quote scripture and try to change people's sexual orientation. I think we should start an organization that is founded to nullify everything that these groups do. Sort of like protesting the protester.

BLACKMAGE48 23 200311:48AM

/sigh. first.... you should 2 threads for 2 arguments it gets too hard to keep them seperate and people start quoting all sorts of strange things from the other unrelated argument. It gets to be like people arguing about the bible... every verse is meaningless without the context and your all throwing that cr@p around then arguing about who had the smelliest hands. Second, it would be possible for someone to dislike the gay lifestyle and principles, but not hate them. I personally do no agree with it, but i couldn't care less if people do it and i feel that most people who disagree with homosexuality feel this way... only they don't really care so they don't go shouting about it like the h8ters do. Because of this some stupid people think that everyone who disagrees with homosexuality kills gays in their free time. This is NOT so. (note: stupid is not aimed at anyone in this thread, but rather several people i know personally who have this belief.) Really it comes down to this: why the F*** are you in my business? get out. If we all just don't harass each other our beliefs won't be a problem.

dans11 23 2003 7:11PM

I guess thats what it comes down to.
It doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree with each other, there is no excuse for not relating to others with understanding and respect for them as fellow human beings.

td19 24 2003 3:19PM

Taking a sentence out of a story to purposely mislead is the epitome of dishonest communication... otherwise known as lying. It's refreshing to see kottke address this problem. See:

http://www.kottke.org/03/09/030917montana_fami.html

Buffalo Will35 02 200312:35AM

hey don't mean to shock or offend anyone here, but getting to Dan's point about anal sex and gay men (& lesbians?) . . . i just happened to be passing thru a video porn store recently and saw near about 2 shelves full of straight anal sex with girls and guys. are you working this into your calculation buddy? . . . seems like with that much thunder in the video store there must be a whole lot of straight people out there getting into that stuff. should we make a general criticism now about straight people the way Dan talks about homosexuals?

Buffalo Will35 02 200312:35AM

hey don't mean to shock or offend anyone here, but getting to Dan's point about anal sex and gay men (& lesbians?) . . . i just happened to be passing thru a video porn store recently and saw near about 2 shelves full of straight anal sex with girls and guys. are you working this into your calculation buddy? . . . seems like with that much thunder in the video store there must be a whole lot of straight people out there getting into that stuff. should we make a general criticism now about straight people the way Dan talks about homosexuals?

Paul28 10 200310:28PM

I think a great reality show for the Montana Family Coalition would be for them all to be herded into their church, lock the doors board up the windows, tie them all up tight and wrap their mouths in duct tape forever.

Samuels Michele 18 11 2003 3:18AM

A brute kills for pleasure. A fool kills from hate.

Goldberg Myla 14 21 2003 4:14AM

Very interesting things in you site

Mr. Smith35 26 2003 5:35AM

I think it is about time that you people wake up and realize that all of your talking is juste a waste of time.I see so many of you on here typing your fancy little thoughts as if you are so very right and others are so very wrong and it makes me sick.The truth,which you all profess to know,is near to you at all times.
but you are all too self involved to see it.Homosexuals are slaves to their loathsome addiction of self gratification and perverted obsessions.They occupy their minds with the pursuit of what it is that defines them.They are a detestable thing not only to the their creator but to their fellow man.I have been a participant in abomination that is homosexuality and have reaped my just rewards for that.I can speak from experience and speak I will.
We are all free moral agents allowed to make our own judgements pertaining to ourselves.We can choose to damage ourselves by engaging in physically harmful sexual practices but must realize that by doing so we are inviting many hardships that will affect both and mind.
As I stated earlier I am no stranger to the lifestyle.I lived it for many years and all the while indulged sexually as often as I could.
And regardless of what type of social setting I found myself in,from a local club to an upper class social gathering,I found this to be true;Sex was the main motivational element to each of our existenses.We lived for the next interlude,often times displaying recklessness in our choosing of partners.
I have been there and I know.
Homosexuals behave like animals,like dogs pursuing a bitch in heat they will sniff the mount almost anything while rarely if ever displaying any self control.
Sadly,as the world slips futher down morally,the homosexual lifestyle is becoming accepted as a viable alternative to the traditional coupling of man and woman.
Nothing good can come of this and time will prove this to be true.
Finally I say this;All of you who choose to engage in dangerous and disgusting sexual perversions should accept the consequences and deal with them as they come on your own .You are a revolting portion of our population that spreads disease and morally damaging propaganda.also, understand this; By flaunting your repulsive lifestyle to the world you, as a group, are opening yourselves up the criticism you recieve.Accept the fact that you are no more than a clan of dirty,perverted animals that place your reproductive organs in something that contains feces for sexual pleasure and you are finally being truthful to your true self.

OhTheBill13 02 2004 5:13PM

OH GOD....here we go...of course the person who is totally against homosexuals and is rallying against them doesn't leave any identifying information, an email to contact, a URL. OF COURSE NOT.

Cook Sioux 57 19 200412:57PM

It is only the most intelligent and the most stupid who are not susceptible to change.

Frank in Valley City12 12 200411:12AM

Perhaps the Montana family Coalition needs review that this is 2004 and also refer to Websters Dictionary for the definition to for the word "CHANGE" then I would suggest they use a Thesaurus for words refering or similar to CHANGE. I this does not mean the two pennies in there pockets.

P36 21 2004 8:36PM

Next you can work on the Super Bowl.......We might see a breast again...Better get that off the air

This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.

kottke.org

Front page
About + contact
Site archives

Subscribe

Follow kottke.org on Twitter

Follow kottke.org on Tumblr

Like kottke.org on Facebook

Subscribe to the RSS feed

Advertisement

Ads by The Deck

Support kottke.org shop at Amazon

And more at Amazon.com

Looking for work?

More at We Work Remotely

Kottke @ Quarterly

Subscribe to Quarterly and get a real-life mailing from Jason every three months.

 

Enginehosting

Hosting provided EngineHosting