Freedom Of Speech
What do you think of the way people are treated after expressing their views on homosexuality? It seems to me that the words "homophobic" and "hate" are almost instantly attached to a person if they don't applaud homosexuality as hip, good, right and virtuous. It's almost as if it's heresy to the political correctness "religion". Freedom of speech is discarded, and bitterness flows from the Left.
I can easily understand why Ann Coulter's latest escapade would have that effect. I think she's interesting, smart and funny, but sometimes not so smart too, as that article shows. But this story is the latest example of what I'm getting at. Congress is prohibited from establishing a law abridging freedom of speech, so the Left seems to be going about it through peer pressure. It has become uncool, unkind, hateful, bigoted, and discriminatory just to say that you "believe" homosexuality to be immoral. Don't we have that right? And yes, I mean Constitutional right. They want Pace to apologize for simply stating his views.
I hope this doesn't come off as "hateful", because I'm just trying to figure out why someone's decision to have sex within their gender has become such a huge issue for the Left. I too believe homosexuality to be immoral, just as adultery and lying, gossip, stealing and scads of other behavior. But one big difference I notice is that there aren't a lot of groups pushing to make those behaviors socially acceptable. Can you help me understand?
posted by DErifter @ 3/13/2007 06:37:00 PM
10 Comments:
I'm with you on this one, derifter (that's refreshing, isn't it?...haha). I'm all for being sensitive toward homosexuals and showing them the love of Christ. I can't stand it when fellow Christians try to "reach" them by shouting at them how they're going to hell and that their lives are an abomination to God. It's really hard to get someone to trust you and listen to you when all they can see coming from you is anger and disgust, and there are better ways to approach them than this.
That being said, Gen. Peter Pace was not being hateful or mean spiritued at all toward homosexuals. He didn't say they "disgusted" him or that he "hated" them (see NBA player Tim Hardaway's recent meltdown). He merely said that he believed homosexuality to be immoral behavior. The man has a right to his opinion (and in my estimation it is a correct opinion, but I digress).
Here's something encouraging: the MSNBC site you have a link to has a poll asking whether you think Gen. Pace should apologize for his comments. Out of more than 51,000 votes, 71% said "no."
Well Josh, I don't know what to say! You're with me on this one? Wait, just gimme a minute........ Okay. Whew!
I couldn't agree more with your thoughts on the "God Hates Fags" model of evangelism, although this represents something of a shift for me. Not that I ever would've spoken those words. I've been a pretty hard-core conservative for a long time, and still am, but I've been taking some baby steps toward the center over the last few years.
The thing that really stands out about the Pace story is that I thought he was being really reasonable and calm. It wasn't a rant, like Hardaway. It wasn't a joke (or slam, or publicity generator) like Coulter. It was a reasoned statement of his opinion. I don't see anything he needs to apologize for. And I am part of the 71% in that poll, which I'll admit surprised me.
opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty
Yup, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Your opinion, however, may not be used to infringe upon my rights or safety as a gay man. The main purpose of hate crimes legislation is LESS about hate speech and more about protecting GLBT people from unwarranted crime. GLBT people are being TARGETTED because of who they are, and that cannot be allowed to continue:
* Kevin Aviance brutally gay-bashed in East Village
* Gay Bashing Victim Dies After Family Removes Life Support
* 72-year-old disabled gay man killed
* Hockey Coach Charged In Brutal Gay Bashing
I'm sure you can find links to those and many other cases of gay bashing.
Musicguy,
Welcome, welcome and again I say, "welcome."
Hey man, if you want me to convince you that gay bashing is cool I don't think I can do it! I'm not advocating violence against gays, L, B, T or anybody else. I don't think Pace had that in mind either. What I was pointing out is the immediate demands for an apology when all the man did was state his opinion.
Feel free to disagree with him, and to state your own opinion too, if you want. (Like that's a problem for you, right?) I've read quite a lot of your comments over at Imago Dei, and getting you to state your opinion is definitely NOT a problem! But that freedom needs to be a two-way street, without name-calling or false accusations.
Regarding "physical" gay-bashing, assault is already a crime. I don't see any reason for a greater or lesser penalty if the victim is gay.
The purpose of any hate crimes legislation is to protect a group of people who are being targetted for abuse. Targetted is the key word here. These aren't random acts of violence, rather violence committed because of a person's sexual orientation. That should carry a higher penalty than a random act of violence.
As for Pace's comments: intolerance breeds violence. Look to the Middle East for a shining example of how out of control things can get when people are intolerant of each other. If you keep saying that someone is immoral or deviant or evil or whatever else, it's only a matter of time before crazies start to act on that, and commit violence against these people. Ever hear of the Nuremburg laws and the havoc they caused for the Jews living in Germany??
"...without false accusations"
One can say that calling me immoral is a false accusation rather than an opinion. interesting thought, no?
Thanks for the welcome. I'll be stopping by to offer the occasional counter argument when I can. I most often stay quite civil and enjoy the debate above all else :-)
I'm still gunna have to disagree with you on the hate crimes thing. Should you be punished more severely if the reason you beat me up is that I have long hair? Or because my hair isn't as long as yours? Or because my dog crapped on your lawn, or my grandfather hit your grandfather with a shovel, or because I'm gay or not gay?
The way I see it the beating is the crime, and what is being punished. Which of the above examples deserves the most serious penalty? I'd say the severity of the beating would be the determining factor, and the group we need to protect is anyone who's getting beat up. But that's just me.
When you mention "intolerance", do you mean intolerance of people's sexual preference, or intolerance of people's views regarding those preferences? (never mind, I know what you mean)
"I'll be stopping by to offer the occasional counter argument when I can. I most often stay quite civil and enjoy the debate above all else :-)
I have both noticed and admired your civility. And hey- You can stop by to AGREE once in a while too, ya know! Later on, man.
If many long-haired people across the country continually experienced brutality at the hands of short-haired people over the course of many years, resulting in deaths and permanent injuries, then yes, I'd advocate a law protecting the long-haired people.
The examples you give are isolated instances. Yes, someone may get beat up when a dog craps in the wrong spot, but it's an ISOLATED incident. When you keep seeing the same thing happen over and over again, a pattern develops, and something should be done to protect those being targetted (there's that word again).
I can see why the "gay" ingredient stands out for you, but if you take the number of people who are assaulted every day in America, and compare that number to the number who are gay, and who were assaulted for that reason, I'd guess it would be a small number. I don't know that for sure. But looking at the big picture, I would think assault against anyone is a more common crime than assaults against gays for the reason of their sexual preference. If the penalty for assault in general is increased, it seems that would include assaults against gays for any reason, without having to justify a special penalty. Everyone wins except those who assault people, right?
Let's say for the moment that I buy your argument. If a dog belonging to a short-haired gay man whose grandfather once hit my grandfather with a shovel craps on my lawn and I beat him up, would it qualify as a hate crime? Another question might be: What if one gay man beat up another gay man?
I'm not sure why we're going down this road, since the post was about freedom of speech, not gay bashing. But I'm okay with it. It's not like all the other commenters here are complaining about it.
Complaint, complaint! Stay on topic!
Just kidding.
Post a Comment
<< Home