14 Responses to “George Takei is gay”
Tim Ellsworth
My book
About
Links
Christian parenting resources
E-mail me
Recent Comments
- Rick Presley on On Mark Driscoll and the SBC: Thanks for posting...
- Mark DeVine on On Mark Driscoll and the SBC: Most Southern Baptists...
- Alex on On Mark Driscoll and the SBC: Oops! I meant to say "two"...
- Alex on On Mark Driscoll and the SBC: "Give me the choice between...
- Luke on On Mark Driscoll and the SBC: Richard, Some good points, but...
- Laz on On Mark Driscoll and the SBC: Good write up Tim.
- Tony Foeller on On Mark Driscoll and the SBC: Very fair treatment,...
Categories
Search:
Cornerstone Connection
Archives
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
Wasn’t Sulu from San Francisco in the series?
He is in real life too. But then, the Japanese-American population in San Francisco has never been small. Sad story about him being in WWII internment camps from ages 4-8.
Unfortunately, in the news piece today about his coming out, he equates racial prejudice with anti-gay sentiment.
Gee, I wonder if that’s because there are similarities between racial prejudice and anti-gay sentiment?
Wow. Who knew? (insert eye-rolling here)
Di,
Certainly not the type of similarities people are thinking of when they make such parallels.
Asian is a genetic, DNA-bound, inherited, unchangeable characteristic that is not chosen and cannot be “unchosen”.
Homosexuality is non of the above. Ok, I know that if this is a gay-friendly blog, I would take heat on every one of those points. But… that is why there is such a debate in our culture over this issue.
My point was, it is disingenuous to simply throw out there the WWII internment of Japanese and say that homosexuals feel the same type of psychological pain.
Scott:
It would definitely be disingenuous of someone who was never part of a Japanese internment camp nor on the receiving end of anti-gay sentiment to make the statements that George Takei made. Since he has experienced both, I would say he is qualified to make the comparison.
(Not applying heat … just making my own point.)
: )
True. But he was not saying, “I have felt the psychological pain of rejection twice in my life, but please draw no metaphysical-ethical conclusions that are normative for the world at large.”
Rather, he was saying, “Japanese felt rejected because of their Japanese heritage. Homosexuals feel rejected because of their sexual orientation. Everyone can agree that the first type is normatively wrong in all cases to make someone feel bad because of their ethnicity, and so therefore everyone should be able to see that it is also normatively wrong in all cases to make someone feel bad because of their sexual orientation.”
That is his point. And I say that it is not a TRUE point to make. His point goes beyond personal pain right into the arena of normative ethics. It isn’t that I don’t LIKE his point, it is that I think it is logically and metaphysically-morally wrong.
On another Star-Trek/morality note… I do wonder why it is a big deal for this actor to “come out”, but William Shatner is a known womanizer (i.e. a free-minded fornicator), but that is sort of winked at… like, hey, what was a handsome celebrity like him supposed to do anyway?
Do we also think the same level of criticism for the hetero who corrups the imago Dei in his sexuality?
I don’t think he’s saying that at all … unless you read a different article than the one I read?
In fact, I’m not exactly sure what “It’s” stands for in the quote by Takei from the article:
“Takei, a Japanese-American who lived in a U.S. internment camp from age 4 to 8, said he grew up feeling ashamed of his ethnicity and sexuality. He likened prejudice against gays to racial segregation.
“‘It’s against basic decency and what American values stand for,’ he said.”
Does “It’s” stand for “prejudice against gays,” or for “racial segregation”? We could even assume that he’s saying homosexuality is “against human decency,” based on this quote and the ambiguity of the antecedent to that pronoun.
(For the record: I do think it’s wrong to make someone feel bad because of their sexual orientation — be it straight, gay, bi or anything in-between … and believe it or not, I’ve seen it from all sides, directed toward the others.)
Di,
You say: “For the record, I do think it’s wrong to make someone feel bad because…”
So, if I simply read a passage such as Romans 1 to my congregation, without making any political/legal statements about “our culture is headed to hell b/c of gays” or anything like that… would it be permissible or not to “make someone feel bad” in that context? I mean, just reading the Scripture with a few or no comments.
You know, like verse 27, “and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
No sermon. Just the reading of chapter 1, because in our church we read a chapter or portion of OT and NT each worship. So, if the person just happened to be sitting there on that day and they heard that… ???
Well, it’s not up to me to say what’s permissible or not … but my initial reaction is, you are simply reading passages of Scripture. Without any editorializing or further interpretations (aside from the words themselves, which are interpretations of the various versions that have come before). So a person’s reaction to the passages, really, is between the individual and God.
Whether he or she feels bad (or good, or indifferent) after hearing those words has nothing to do with you or whoever is reading the passages.
Hmmm…. methinks that you and I have a different understanding of the authority of God’s revelation as found in Scripture.
Having said that, I think I will drop this discussion though. Blogging etiquette being what it is, I don’t want to be guilty of hijacking Tim’s board for our own discussion on a BIG topic.
Scott is correct. If one does not believe the Bible to be the inerrant unchanging Word of God this discussion is pointless. However, just remember if everyone gets to decide for themselves what’s right and what’s wrong then we can’t criticize ‘gay bashing’ and concentration camps since in someone’s eyes those things are OK (probably because they read scripture and between them and God, these things were just fine.)
Scott: I think you are right-on on those last 2 points … and I don’t think either of us is likely to change the other’s mind (not that that is necessarily either of our intentions, anyway) … and this is a big topic, but it’s probably time to move on (at least for now). But I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and the spirit of this discussion.
: )
And Larry: Thank you for implying that this discussion has been pointless.