Comments on: NYU Law Hires a True Homophobe — To Teach Human Rights

By: Victory: Li-Ann Thio Will NOT Teach at NYU School of Law « Submitted to a Candid World

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:28:46 +0000

[...] but apparently not alumni (I’m hurt!!). Frequent readers will recall that Dr. Thio has made frequent, bizarre, and needlessly offensive statements in Singapore’s Parliament about the perceived immorality of homosexuality. Notably, the law [...]

By: Note to New Readers « Submitted to a Candid World

Note to New Readers « Submitted to a Candid World — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:37:07 +0000

[...] NYU Law Hires a True Homophobe — To Teach Human Rights [...]

By: Erik J

Erik J — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:59:14 +0000

Well, it’s almost certainly not a sound argument, no, but validity is pretty respectable, as arguments go.

Assuming, of course, that we’re trying to be as charitable as possible to ACG’s initial claim, which I suspect was made out of reflexive politeness to bigots rather than sincerely held belief.

By: ThoryOfPractice

ThoryOfPractice — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:18:23 +0000

Ames said that there were “principled, respectable” arguments supporting discrimination against homosexuals. Arguments that rely on hateful Bronze-age superstitions are neither principled nor respectable…

By: Erik J

Erik J — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:45:33 +0000

Arguments, those are easy.

P1. If the King James Version is the true and inerrant Word of God, then gay rights and gay marriage are bad.
P2. The King James Version is the true and inerrant Word of God.
C. Gay rights and gay marriage are bad.

The argument is great. Valid, even! Of course, there’s a small problem with P2…

By: D.F. Manno

D.F. Manno — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:57:53 +0000

I believe you are mistaken. Even if they do not receive government funds and are private, churches are still required to obey laws of general application. A church would still be subject to anti-discrimination laws where they do not affect the practice of religion. For example, a church can’t refuse to hire blacks as parish secretaries merely because they’re black.

By: Batocchio

Batocchio — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:05:37 +0000

I’ve just watched the whole thing – 30 minutes! – it takes a long time to justify outright bigotry. There’s so much to choose from, but what I enjoy the most are her self-righteous assertions that 1) anyone who supports gay rights is a less rigorous thinker than she is, 2) the intolerant don’t bear the burden of proof – civil rights activists must exhaustively reassure the intolerant that rights can’t possibly be “abused,” 3) her argument that opposing a law because it’s outdated is “chronological bigotry,” followed later by the contradictory argument that gay sex is wrong because it violates community standards, 4) her equation of the sexual exploitation of children with consensual adult gay sex (an old chestnut) 5) all talk about the “gay agenda” and “homosexual propaganda,” including her claim that legality will lead to adult gay men preying upon 13 year old boys, 6) gay rights will lead to the degradation of women, 7) heterosexual sodomy is just fine, unlike the dirty, dirty gay kind, 8) her at-length discussions of “anal penetrative sex,” (which apparently make some in the gallery shift uncomfortably), and of course, 9) her claim that gay people should be treated fairly and her outrage that she’s not a bigot – despite her entire argument.

Since I’m new here, I’m not getting the Above the Law threat – they currently have a post up on Thio Li-ann’s letter to NYU. She’s so very, very offended. I’d be interested in seeing the full text of her speech here, even if much of it is old hat.

By: TheoryOfPractice

TheoryOfPractice — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:20:55 +0000

All the more reason not to let them perform a civil/legal function.

By: SouthernQuaker

SouthernQuaker — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:07:23 +0000

I don’t believe that is true. Churches (1) do not receive governmental funds and (2) are private, not public accommodations. Therefore I don’t believe they are subject to anti-discrimination laws. It would not surprise me at all if some churches still *do* refuse to marry inter-racial couples.

By: TheoryOfPractice

TheoryOfPractice — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:33:56 +0000

Anzezzle, your comment points to why I think religions should not be allowed to conduct weddings–at least not weddings that are legally recognized by the state. A church refusing to marry, say, a white man and a black woman on the grounds of some religious belief or another would, of course, not be allowed to do so. I don’t see gay marriage as any different. Marriage is first and foremost a legal and civil matter (you might get married in church, but you have to be divorced in court…) and ancient superstitions, and the hates and prejudices they generate, have no place in modern legal affairs