“The change in views on gay rights shows how fast this can change. Are we so confident that views can’t change in the opposite direction?”
Sure, they can in theory. But if we take the student at his word, the problem isn’t homosexuality, it’s a small amount of nudity in art. Notwithstanding John Ashcroft covering a statue’s naked breast 10+ years ago, I’d say that that ship sailed a long time ago in Western civilization (Greece? Egypt?), and there is no chance that some neo-Victorian movement is at hand.
My point is just that the question of whether an issue has an “other side” that needs to be treated with some kind of respect is a moving target. On some issues, we’d all probably agree that there effectively is no other side any more. This is certainly true of slavery, and I would argue that it is true of evolution at a secular university.
For other issues that continue to be hot button issues–same-sex marriage, abortion, gun control, immigration, and many more, I don’t think you can say that any of them are settled enough to say that the “other side” shouldn’t have an opportunity to speak–no matter how strong one believes one’s own “side” to be.
You aren’t in favor of free speech rights at secular universities for creationists?(joke - I know that isn’t true ) I don’t think it is going over well in the classroom, but it’s usually possible find a soapbox in a public space. They may just be ignored or ridiculed. That becomes the risk. I’m not saying everyone shouldn’t have the opportunity to speak I’m saying I, personally, don’t have to respond. And I’m not go out of my way to listen. My time isn’t infinite.
I have to leave this thread for a while. Zombies are just a bit more interesting to me at the moment, and there is a thread in the cafe.
I would be interested in reading a book discussion about the book referenced in the OP, as opposed to others which may or may not be of interest. And I keep hoping JHS will come back and share his reading list.
That’s not what I meant to imply. I think they should certainly be allowed to get up on a soapbox if they like. However, I don’t think that a biology professor should have to devote any time to a discussion of creation vs. evolution, or that creationists deserve “equal time” in a discussion of evolution. Just as I don’t think a history professor should have to allow a student time to make arguments on why slavery is good.
But (just to make up an example), if a class was being given on Medical Ethics (that included discussion) I think it would be wrong for a professor to shut down students who wanted to argue against assisted suicide.
Oh… I’ve been a vegetarian for nearly a decade and you’d be amazed at what some people say. (The vast majority are respectful, just like the vast majority of vegetarians are respectful. Of course, there will always be donkeys on both sides of any “issue.”)
@Hunt#397 wrote: “This raises an interesting question: when does the “other side” become so marginalized that there no longer needs to be an acknowledgement that it exists? Certainly nobody feels that they have to honor arguments in favor of slavery.”
Sadly, you do run into such arguments about slavery—sure, they’re generally couched in a sort of language like “African-Americans have materially benefited by having their ancestors brought out of Africa to North America”, but what it’s really saying is “Slavery was actually pretty okay”. We keep having the misfortune of having to fight the same battles, repeatedly.
You chose to analogize the course of American history on slavery rather than abortion rights. In terms of how long this discussion is going to be around, abortion would have been the better choice IMHO.
It’s more important for men to go to college than it is for women.
Women are too hysterical to vote in elections.
Blacks count as 3/5 of a person.
Employment ads specify a white person, a male, a female, or some other demographic.
Teachers can hit misbehaving students with a stick.
The questions about these “sides” of the “debate” are really this: Does the reasonable person in our society believe that these ideas have any merit? What’s the tipping point when a common wisdom moves to an unacceptable idea?
“Much2learn, can you explain how with such a filter, one could say or claim anything that is critical of homosexuality as a behavior or lifestyle? From a moral perspective or otherwise?”
I’m not sure what you mean by “lifestyle.” There are gay people who are promiscuous and sleep with anyone and everyone, and gay people who are monogamous and committed / married. Just like straight people.
Would your feelings towards the book be any different if Mr. Bechdel had been having affairs with straight women and it caused the damage to his family that he did?
“Oh… I’ve been a vegetarian for nearly a decade and you’d be amazed at what some people say. (The vast majority are respectful, just like the vast majority of vegetarians are respectful. Of course, there will always be donkeys on both sides of any “issue.”)”
Like anyone even remotely cares if someone else is a vegetarian or not! I think people who elicit negative comments on this are looking for negativity.
That’s my question, too. I think it’s true that abortion rights hasn’t reached that tipping point. Indeed, I thought that the idea that abortion is appropriate to save the life of the mother had reached that point, but perhaps it hasn’t.
It must be something of a shock to find that you have been left by the side of the road on some of these issues. I do have some sympathy for a kid who goes to college to find that he is universally mocked for his view that the world was created six thousand years ago. He may have come from a community where this was a widely held, or even majority view.
I do think that some of us may get a bit ahead of the curve in thinking that our own view has become the default.
“You chose to analogize the course of American history on slavery rather than abortion rights. In terms of how long this discussion is going to be around, abortion would have been the better choice IMHO.”
I think interracial marriage is the best analogy to gay marriage - something that was “oh, my, must fan oneself” (especially in the southern states that were the last to come along for the ride).
Let’s suppose Duke had asked students to watch “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”. Would it be appropriate for a student who sincerely believed the races shouldn’t be intermingled to comment that he was offended by it and wouldn’t watch it? Of course it’s a free country - such a student can clearly say whatever he likes - but it’s pretty evident that such a student wouldn’t wind up making a lot of friends, and would probably be ridiculed.
“In terms of how long this discussion is going to be around” was the important part of the quote. We were now discussing how soon this discussion is just going to go fade away, donkeys and so on, or so I thought.
People who were using the bible to justify racial discrimination weren’t just on the wrong side of history. They were on the wrong side of scripture. Don’t underestimate the importance of that to the people on the other side.
“People who were using the bible to justify racial discrimination weren’t just on the wrong side of history. They were on the wrong side of scripture. Don’t underestimate the importance of that to the people on the other side.”
We live in the United States, where we are supposed to make public policy decisions without regard to any one particular religion’s scripture. I think those on “the other side” don’t understand how irrelevant their arguments about what their holy books say or don’t say are to the rest of us. Because we don’t really care if your holy book says people who are born in December should only marry other people born in December, or blue-eyed people should only marry other blue-eyed people. We continue to be amazed and dismayed that “the other side” seems to think their (interpretation of) their holy book is of any relevance or interest to the rest of us, and we sometimes wonder where they learned their American history if they actually think that it should be relevant.
Re post 410–Would your feelings towards the book be any different if Mr. Bechdel had been having affairs with straight women and it caused the damage to his family that he did?
My question.: …would it be required/recommended reading if it WAS about straight women? Would it ever have had any traction to get published? The “lesson” is supposed to be about emotional turmoil which is there in BOTH cases-but would it have been published without the gay hook?
I think it would be published if the writing/story is great–but then would it be on the college list even so?
Most well-known cartoonists are straight, and yes, if you’ve been a well-known cartoonist for decades, you can find a publisher for your book. Even if it isn’t great.
“would it be on the college list even so?”
I’m pretty sure books by straight authors with straight themes have dominated these lists for years.
In this case, I happen to believe the winners were right—but if things had worked out the other way, you wouldn’t be able to make that claim with as straight a face as you’re wearing right now. Scriptural interpretation—and even Biblical literalists are widely on board with this—is filtered through the culture in which the interpretation is being conducted.
) I don’t think it is going over well in the classroom, but it’s usually possible find a soapbox in a public space. They may just be ignored or ridiculed. That becomes the risk. I’m not saying everyone shouldn’t have the opportunity to speak I’m saying I, personally, don’t have to respond. And I’m not go out of my way to listen. My time isn’t infinite.