What is the source of IBD's information? They have lost some credibility with me by giving Saul Alinsky a pejorative nickname that I have never seen associated with him: "The Red."

Erratum: "Kopel", of course

They forgot "Neocolonialist arpartheid Zionism" as contributing to heterosexism. The former also causes borealcentrism and logocentrism.

Clearly the answer is that all liberals hate America and are anxious for Obama to impose sharia law.

JK,

I think capitalism is used an an excuse because a zero-sum economical theory leads to the generation of wealth necessarily equating to a process of theft. Since the economy is supposed to be a fixed size, and because people require some resources to survive, theft of wealth changes the balance of power in favor of the rich.

Because of traditional roles, I suppose it's claimed they retain the wealth and power in a household. Traditionally, and biologically, women tend to be the parent to raise the children while men earn money. Thus they do not have direct control over the men's wealth, and thus are disadvantaged. And so we get to something approximating "heterosexism".

I also want to add that starting from the mind-meltingly absurd premise of zero-sum economies, one can reason through to some modern political causes which one would have outherwise rightly thought unjustifiable. Perhaps knocking them down is as simple as finally killing that premise (though it's a doozy).

Oh, I got a sense of IBD's objectivity before they even mentioned Alinsky; let's try:

" Obama . . . . . . calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service." Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of 'social change.'"

I then kept looking for an actual copy, or citation by IBD of the text of the secret 'diversity seminar'; nowhere to be found. Can't tell who said it or wrote it, when, addressed to who.

At least I can point, with some clicking through, to exactly which right-wing Christian nut-jobs say in public that we should elect McCain/Palin because of Palin's relationship with God, and then pray to God that he either brings McCain into line with true Christianity, or ahem, "removes" him. (This bit of nut-jobbery being the origin of Doc Volokh's earlier post inquiring whether or not prayer could constitute attempted murder...)

Because of traditional roles, I suppose it's claimed they retain the wealth and power in a household. Traditionally, and biologically, women tend to be the parent to raise the children while men earn money. Thus they do not have direct control over the men's wealth, and thus are disadvantaged. And so we get to something approximating "heterosexism".

They must really be against Islam too then...

They must really be against Islam too then...

I take it this was sarcastic. There is a ton of PC hypocrisy on this score. I wish I could paste in a great cartoon I have about this.

That being said, there are plenty of people who believe in tolerance and sensitivity who don't apologize for Islam any more than they apologize for fundamentalist Christians. Unfortunately, so many critics of Islam have been transparently intolerant or had theological motives that the debate has/had been lost. It would help if conservatives would call out the true haters in their midst.

Unfortunately, so many critics of Islam have been transparently intolerant or had theological motives that the debate has/had been lost. It would help if conservatives would call out the true haters in their midst.

Jesus, yes.

I'm waiting for more than a very few conservatives to do just that. Unfortunately, too many of the honest ones seem to find fellow travelers easier to agree with than their consciences. Hosts here are exceptions, mostly. Would that I could say that about commenters.

How is it that Obama was associated with this kind of ultra-loony organization and no one even knows about it? (Well, the real question is, how did Obama even get to any elected office with these kind of associations.) The equivalent on the right of this kind of lunacy would be, at best, the John Birch Society or the Christian Reconstructionist movement, and at worst, pro-white groups. Could any conservative be elected even to a state senate (let alone the U.S. Senate) with these credentials on his resume?

Hey, man, it isn't capitalism. It's agriculture! We'd all be living in egalitarian hunter-gatherer bands if some jerk hadn't decided to put some useful plants right outside the door and pen up a few goats. Or rather, a small number of us would be living that way and a lot of us would be dead. I would have bought it at 14, if I had been born at all, and of course most of the people who lived over the past few thousand years wouldn't have even been conceived.

Be careful what you wish for. I'll take agriculture, capitalism, and the European Enlightenment despite the byproducts. That doesn't mean we should accept bigotry, but rather that we should be trying to improve on previous innovations rather than chucking them out because the first round wasn't perfect.

What?

I don't know about all that research. All I know is that the cause of my "heterosexism" are women like Keely Hazell and Grace Park.

Males have had a near monopoly of public or political power in every system I've ever heard of. But many male homosexuals have had no problem slipping into roles of power in this context. Among the many historical male leaders who were probably homosexual are the monstrous warmonger Alexander the "Great," various militarist European and African monarchs and military leaders, Asian and Middle Eastern eunuch regents and viziers in the ancient, medieval, and early modern period, and plenty of closeted politicians in the modern democratic era, including, rumor has it, various important prime ministers in several western countries.

Judging by credible rumors, a proportionate number of top leaders in the business world are gay as well, as are prominent leaders in the non-profit sector, in the US and abroad.

If males are indeed "privileged" in our society then gay men fully participate in that privilege. Remember, only a small percentage of any group are "leaders;" surely gay men produce the same percentage. Among women, I believe lesbians are over-represented in leadership; this includes a number of fairly prominent politicians.

The plain reality is that gay liberation, however defined, has triumphed only in capitalist countries, and generally in the most capitalist periods in those countries. The 1920s was an era of relative liberation for gays, in real life and in literature and the arts. The thirties through the fifties saw some regression, at least in the public sphere. The biggest changes have occurred in the post-1969 era, when capitalist values have become triumphant throughout the world.

It may be ironic, but the Stonewall Era has been congruent with the Reagan/Thatcher era, and it's hard to believe that's an accident.

So- male privilege and capitalism have nothing to do with "homophobia."

As far as the varieties of racism, there's one huge difference with homophobia: gays come in all colors and religions. As gay people come out openly and with confidence, people of all races and religions have come to understand that they are "one of us," which inevitably reduces homophobia. There is a dramatic generational shift toward acceptance or at least tolerance, even among evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, soldiers, and other unfriendly groups.

One can easily imagine a United States without much homophobia. Honestly, I can't imagine a world without "racism," which is really another word for "in group--out group" or "we-them." E.g., many self-identified opponents of racism have no problem propagating the ugliest, most ignorant prejudices against religious or racial groups they don't like-- e.g., white people, Jews, evangelicals, Americans, yada yada.

So-- bottom line, homophobia has no relation whatsoever to capitalism, sexism, or racism.

Next question?

From my own research I would say that the more militaristic a society, the more likely they are to embrace homosexuality because they use it as bonding mechanism in their military units. Societies that leave the individual little choice in matters of marriage, such a traditional Japanese culture, usually treat homosexuality as mere sexual quirk because it never impacts an individuals family obligations.

Homophobia in the west springs from two sources: individual freedom especially in marriage and ethical universalism i.e. same rules for everyone. In a time when families formed the political, economic and military base unit of society. A homosexual posed major problem for a family in an environment where individuals could choose when and who they married.

All of this makes sense (including Obama using the phrase equal pay for equal work) if you realize that in his early twenties, Obama was a die-hard Marxist. (I personally still think he is, though not as extreme as he was in his his early twenties.)

It's agitprop, plain and simple. "We all know 'heterosexism' is bad, so let's associate it with these other bad things, like capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege."

The two-minute hate today will focus on the evil causes of heterosexism and how we want to destroy these causes to bring about our grand and glorious future of freedom and equality.