forgive me for saying so, but your position toward religious conservatives seems just as intolerant as the position toward homosexuals (or, often more properly, homosexuality) held by the people you castigate. don't get me wrong--i think the 'God hates fags' business is a silly way of trying to persuade anyone of anything. but having a moral opposition to certain types of activity does not of necessity mean that that opposition implies 'fear of homosexuals/homosexuality'. certainly, most people who oppose the practice of homosexuality hold strongly to their position(s)--ideological, theological, or however you care to label them--and making a moral pronouncement implies an appropriation of moral authority. but this is true whenever anyone decides to speak on a moral issue. by stating that others ought not to hold these positions (that is, those of social conservatives), you yourself are assuming moral authority over their way of looking at the world and are calling into question their system of morality. your starting-point and framework is simply different. i don't think making statements about morality is a bad thing--but any position should be recognized for what it is, and affixing the label 'tolerance' to your position and urging others to adopt it is no less a moral stance than the stance of those you oppose. and from your evident disgust with such people, you demonstrate that you too cling tenaciously to an ideological or moral position; ideological purity (defined as strict adherence to a way of looking at the world) is not something found only in marxists and social conservatives--a laissez-faire position consistently held and applied is just as clear and hard-line a statement of an ideology as anything else.

certainly a man should be judged by the content of his character; but where a man puts his penis is judged by many to be an issue of character. if (and i have no idea whether you do) you believe that the sexual act should be severed from all ties except the purely physical, that is without doubt a position that can be taken. but there are reasonably well-argued positions that also hold that the act of sex is intrinsically tied to emotional, psychological, spiritual, and moral elements, such as the traditional Christian perspective. if one holds to a position such as the latter, where a man puts his penis is fundamentally bound up with issues of character. i wish to force no one to adopt this view, but we ought to be tolerant of people who do. i am fully aware that many people on the right say many hateful and hurtful things toward those who practice homosexuality (many on the left also say hateful and hurtful things, though their targets are different), but that does not mean that they speak for all who morally oppose homosexuality, nor does such opposition necessitate hateful behavior and intolerance of individuals. i may oppose heroin addiction; for that matter, i may oppose the act of smelling roses; but that does not in any way mean that i cannot be civil toward and friends with those who use heroin or smell roses while still holding such moral positions.

anyway, those are just a few thoughts. i very much enjoy classical values and find its content very thought-stimulating, so please keep up the good work!

"Reactionary"? I'll tell you what's "reactionary": It's the despicable euphemasia in that purposely destructive anti-concept, "homophobia".

Any who ever uses that word in my presence is instantly disqualified for the least consideration of rational discourse.

Eric-
You never cease to impress me with your thoughtful blogging. I have no idea how you are able to maintain creativity but I doff my hat to you and your blog. You are quite right in your acertian that a man (or woman) should be judged by character not by sexual preference -I would extend the penis placement analogy but as I intend my comment to be gender neutral, it could just get too complicated. I am a conservative and libertarian in my out look. From my seat in the house, the "issue" that I have is not with gay or lesbians as indivduals, but the collective "gay rights"; the agendized and radical. It boils down to human rights verses group rights. When I see the Queer Nation or ACT Up or pick-your-group and their behavior it sets my teeth on edge. I resent being accused of homophobia if I disagree with a position and lumped into "facist" simply because I may disagree with same-sex marriages or, horror of horrors: support a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Yours is a reasonable argument and you have made it well. Take heart, Eric, you have an audience which may disagree but will listen and I think that numbers are greater than you think.

By the way, I liked the picture of you, the swords, and the diversity t-shirt. You bear a remarkable resemblence to a cross between Sam Elliot and Donald Sutherland.

Well ...
I don't recall any push for gay marriage by Alexander or Hephaiston back in 330 BC - why now ?

Just to declarte myself ...
I'm NOT gay. No. But the guy I have sex with is. He's a big Pansy. Fruit. Poofter. Such a fag.

Thanks for the comments everyone!

A few points. First, the word "homophobia" is not a word I use seriously to describe anyone or anything, as it is non-referent, a non-word, ill-defined, and inflammatory. But I care more here about what is meant, and think I know what Roger refers to, which is anti-homosexual bigotry. Tolerance of homosexuality is analogous to tolerance of owning guns, owning property, of vegetarianism or Judaism -- and has nothing to do with whether anyone likes homosexual acts or people. In fact, I couldn't care less whether people like them. I do not say that people "ought not to hold these positions." What disturbs me is that (if you read statements like those made by guys like Alan Keyes) the magnitude of their disgust is way out of all proportion to the imagined offense. To me, it's every bit as incomprehensible as anti-Semitism, gun control, or trying to restrict what someone eats. In laissez faire terms, this intolerance of human sexuality reminds me of Communist intolerance of property rights. If a laissez faire approach is intolerant of those who want to use government force to intrude upon others, then I submit that turns tolerance on its head. I cannot "tolerate" those who would use force to deny me my property rights, my personal rights, my right to defend myself. I am not trying to deny anyone the right to particular religious practices, but similarly, they have no right to compel me to follow their religious dictates. (Yet that is what they want to do.)

Why is there such great fuss over what someone else does sexually? And even assuming it's a character flaw (without asking how), is this an appropriate thing for government to worry about? The people who pray where others applaud, and who want "sodomy" laws reenacted, are not simply running a church or a mosque somewhere; they're trying to run the Republican Party.

This is not about same sex marriage, but about getting along in a civil manner. And winning elections. From a purely practical standpoint, Arnold's approach has been shown to work better than theirs. Might that be why they don't like him?

By the way, I can't stand groupthink, be it homosexual, heterosexual, religious, or otherwise, and I liked what Arnold said about individuality. The problem is, individual rights and groupthink don't mix very well. Radical gay activists and religious conservatives often remind me of each other. (Another old issue, I know....)

This discussion, of course, touches upon many issues I've blogged about before. (If interested, these are some older posts on a sore subject!)

New readers might keep in mind my longstanding opposition (grounded in libertarianism as well as pragmatism) to same sex marriage before making the usual assumptions about my thinking. The irony is that right now, if the gay marriage issue weren't there (as a sort of buffer zone), the debate would still be about "sodomy." Perhaps it still is.

Actually Roger made it quite clear that:

Anti-Federal Marriage = Homophobia and Bigot

not a roger fan seems to be correct, for roger's comment followed his citation of a gay-rights man's outrage over a panel decision about same-sex marriage and unions:

Christopher Barron of the Log Cabin Republicans, a GOP gay-rights group, was livid after the panel endorsed the first-ever call for a constitutional gay-marriage ban in a GOP platform and went beyond that to oppose legal recognition of any same-sex unions.

``You can't craft a vicious, mean-spirited platform and then try to put lipstick on the pig by putting Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger on in prime time,'' he said in an interview.

But you can, evidently. We live in a strange world where hypocrisy piles on hypocrisy. [You're sounding rather ornery this morning.-ed. Are you in a bad mood? Yup. Sleep deprivation. I guess I'm feeling a little like a flak for the Republican Party. I don't particularly enjoy that feeling. I don't like being a flak for anybody. Yes, we're in a war that's important.Terribly important. And, yes, I think John Kerry is a straw man who should not lead us in such a situation. But there's nothing that makes me more angry than masked or unmasked homophobia. It's deeply reactionary and immoral.]

Eric, you forgot to emphasize one point I think you've made well before: one can be morally conservative without being a moral conservative. The first (conservative in one's morals) is personal, the second (conservative on moral issues) is social and implies the imposition of authority and effecting policy.

So you're right on the money when you say that moral conservatives want to impose their morality on you. But we should all distinguish between individual (conservative) morality and legislated morality, which never works.

Thanks for the reminder, Dennis.

There are of course libertarian moral conservatives as well as authoritarian moral conservatives. The latter tend to regard the former as not conservative, and the debate is unending.

One other thing: if not-a-Roger-fan is correct, then I must be a bigot and a homophobe, because I am anti-Federal Marriage. Is that what he means? (Actually, I oppose the FMA, but have strong reservations about same sex marriage. I doubt Roger would call me a homophobe!)

actually, that appears to be what he does mean, in that post at least. mr. barron extrapolates from an endorsement of a constitutional amendment and an opposition to legal recognition of same-sex unions that their platform is 'vicious' and 'mean-spirited'. and mr. simon seems to extrapolate from that that he has cause for anger at 'masked or unmasked homophobia'. what that makes you by roger's definition is beside the point, aside from the fact that it points up the hyperbole of mr. simon's terminology, since i highly doubt that you are a homophobe or a bigot.

Roger Simon is attempthing to SHAME instead of argue, to WHINE instead of reason. Typical irrational leftist tactics.

I really hopes he sticks around the GOP. But if he wants to make a difference he needs to REASON and make his case to Republicans in their language, and not resort to leftist irrationality.

E, I think that one of the points Christopher Barron was making was that writing opposition to civil unions into the party platform was a step beyond merely supporting the FMA. In that light, I think the part about mean-spiritedness makes sense (though I'm not sure it was such a hot idea to put it that way), as does (if that's what he was thinking about) Simon's comment about the content of the platform vs. the image projected by the speakers.

More generally: having grown up so far to the right in the Religious Right that we were about to fall off the edge, I can't get too worked up about people who ostentatiously pray in public. They have their reward (to coin a phrase). It would be nice if a lot of such people didn't believe they have a right to undisturbed complacency, or to pretend that people they don't approve of don't exist.