When folks tell me they're insulted by being reminded that their terminology is bigoted, I am often tempted to respond with my best Betty Davis impression: "Butcha AH, Blanche, ya AH in that chair!". But that, of course, would be counter-productive to the discussion at hand. Usually I just walk away at that point, because why beat a dead horse. Mr. New will either take my advice, or he won't. Whether he's insulted or not really is no longer of concern to me.
Keep in mind that Paula Deen *still* is tearfully denying being a racist after multiple and continued use of the N word toward her workers. All I can say is, 'if the shoe fits, wear it, no matter how uncomfortable it is'. On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1, 9:46 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: > Well, many people find others expressly suggesting that they > change their political terminology to be demeaning and dismissive. Indeed, > publicly asking people to change how they speak – and calling people bigots – > is often felt to be insulting. One might well suggest that people remove > such requests from their terminology. > > Naturally, of course, Ms. Dudley might respond that she is > right in suggesting that Mr. New is a bigot, and that her comment should fit > within an exception to the principle I mentioned above. And Mr. New might > respond that he was right in calling homosexuality a lifestyle, and that it > is her comment that is insulting. (Or maybe these two people wouldn’t – I > can’t read their minds – but others on their side well might.) But that just > highlights, I think, how unproductive these sorts of demands are in public > debate, and how unlikely they are to actually persuade people. > > Eugene > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 9:32 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent > > Add my intellectual curiousity to Dr. Finkelman's. Homosexuality isn't a > lifestyle, any more than heterosexuality is. Considering homosexuals vary > wildly in ethnicities, economic status, religions, moralities, the only thing > they have in common is their sexuality. Kinda like heterosexuals, it seems > to me. > > We in the homosexual sector consider the term "lifestyle" to be demeaning or > dismissive. It is considered insulting and since it is often used by bigots, > a bigoted term. May I suggest you remove it from your terminology, Mr. New? > > > On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1, 8:00 PM, "Finkelman, Paul" > <paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu> wrote: > > > Dear Mr. New > > I would love to know that the "homosexual lifestyle" is. > > One of my former students is a law graduate and a sitting judge; her > partner/wife has and MBA; they have twin daughters (through a sperm bank); > are members of the local Temple, one is on the board of the Temple. They live > in a very nice house in the suburbs; They vote, pay taxes; send their kids to > school. They have been together since the mid-1990s. > > Another one of my very close friends is an associate dean at a law school; > his partner/husband is a physician. They life in really nice apartment in NY > City. My law professor friend writes great scholarship and does a ton of pro > bono work. They have been together for about 14 years. > > Both of these marriages (which lacked legal sanction until just a few years > ago) have lasted longer than many of the hetero-marriages I have seen and I > suspect have lasted longer than the average hetero marriage does in many > places. > > Is there something wrong with these lifestyles? > > You talk in your post of the "homosexual lifestyle." I have no idea what you > are talking about. > Care to share this with the list? My gay friends have lifestyles very much > like my straight friends except their marriages seem to be longer lasting. > > Maybe you are opposed to longer lasting marriages? > > > ************************************************* > Paul Finkelman, Ph.D. > President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law > Albany Law School > 80 New Scotland Avenue > Albany, NY 12208 > > 518-445-3386 (p) > 518-445-3363 (f) > > paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu > www.paulfinkelman.com > ************************************************* > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] > on behalf of David W. New [david_...@msn.com] > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 8:16 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent > > Respectfully, I disagree with you. I just finished writing a 3,400 word > article making the case against homosexuality without using religion in any > way. I think a very strong case can be made against homosexual lifestyle > without any reference to God, the Bible, etc. As you can imagine, I am busy > trying to find a publisher because of its length and in some cases, its > content. If I ever get it published, the title of my article is: > > "Listen To Your Body, 7 Reasons Why Homosexuality is Bad for America." I hope > that Americans will continue to be extended the courtesy to think for > themselves--even if its not popular. It seems that defenders of the gay > lifestyle who want us to be tolerant of homosexuality become very intolerant > if you dare to disagree with them. We are living in a Joseph McCarthy era in > reverse. Now it’s the left who is intolerant. Sincerely, David W. New, Esq. > Member Maryland and DC Bars. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jean Dudley > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 12:27 PM > Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent > > I'm with Eduardo; I can't believe this. Mr. Esenberg, it's not simply a > matter of disagreement, it's a matter of said arguments simply do not hold > water without a religious premise. Put another way, yes, I disagree with the > arguments, but that's because they're fallacious to the point of > autoeroticism. There are no valid non-religious arguments against > homosexuality. > On Jun 30, 2013, at Sun, Jun 30, 6:38 PM, "Esenberg, Richard" > <richard.esenb...@marquette.edu> wrote: > > > You can certainly disagree with these arguments but they do not proceed from > theological premises. > > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; > people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) > forward the messages to others. > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; > people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) > forward the messages to others. > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; > people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) > forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
