Teh homos are coming! Teh homos are coming!

[Burris]

Over at FSTDT.com, an article written by Pastor Steve Cornell has appeared. He articulates his opposition to homosexuality and denies the fight for marriage equality is in any way comparable to earlier civil rights movements.

Ironically, I have received more hate-mail on this subject than any other. Only occasionally do I receive a thoughtful response. Many letters arrive unsigned and full of venom. I have been called a hate-monger, a homophobic religious bigot, and other names inappropriate for publication.

What I find interesting about this is I have faced similar responses to my own website, which at first appears – this would be at a fast glance – to oppose homosexuality. It has been my experience, however, that most – and by that, I mean more than half - of the thoughtful responses I’ve ever gotten are from professed homosexuals. Unlike some of their more zealous heterosexual counterparts, they actually read my site and understood my goals. (I can only hope their willingness to accept differing views will continue once they achieve equality. There are some religious minorities I can think of that don’t extend tolerance to other people even despite their own histories of having been persecuted for their beliefs.)

One point that is made repeatedly is that my view should be kept to myself and other "small minded people like me."

I think it’s important that people like Cornell should be allowed to express their views without fear of economic or even physical reprisal. One problem with trying to curtail free speech is that any such effort will only drive the speech underground and thus imbue it with the aura of dangerous truth. Better that society should face this speech head-on and dismantle these kinds of arguments point by point.

By implication, only one viewpoint about homosexuality should be heard---the affirming one. All others are unworthy. This is intriguing. Those who chose the homosexual lifestyle use to repeatedly say, "All we want is to be left alone to live the way we desire." Obviously, this is not all they want.

Even that low bar has yet to be achieved. We’re still living in an era where some administrators feel emboldened to fire openly homosexuals teachers, and where Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is still policy in the US military (officially until September, 2011, and probably long after that unofficially).

Ultimately, however, I accept Cornell’s argument that homosexuals want more. Where we disagree is that I think homosexuals should want more: They should have equal rights.

Many homosexuals want to normalize their lifestyle in society. Homosexuals activists want to force their lifestyle on you.

I haven’t cut anything out of the above. He really did just jump from ‘normalization’ to ‘force their lifestyle on you’ within the space of eight words. He obviously sees a close relationship between the two concepts, but he’s wrong.

‘The homosexual lifestyle’ would necessarily include homosexual activities and perhaps same-sex attraction. No one is trying to force anyone else to ‘go gay.’

One of the most manipulative tools used by homosexual activists is a comparison of their cause with civil rights causes of the past. As the gay marriage debate escalates, we will repeatedly hear comparisons between inter-racial marriage and gay marriage. This is a false comparison.

Actually, it’s an apt comparison – but I can go one better. I’ll get to that after his next comment:

But they will continue to insist that you buy the line that homosexuals are an oppressed minority group. Instead, I invite you to consider that it is a dangerous error (and an offense to real minorities) to compare homosexuals with previous groups that fought for civil rights. Homosexuality is a behavior people choose.

And here’s the crux of the matter: Cornell is claiming (1) that homosexuals are not a real minority, because (2) they can ‘choose their behavior.’

This should go without saying, but clearly it doesn’t: Religion is a choice. If the criterion for being a “real minority†is that the cause be an innocent condition of being, rather than a choice, then Christians in predominantly Muslim countries have absolutely nothing to complain about. If they want equal rights, they need only convert to Islam. I mean, duh!

The burden is on Cornell and his peeps – even assuming they can prove it’s a choice at all – to prove that homosexuality is not only harmful, but so harmful that marriage equality would pose undue hardship on other people.

Neither religion-mixing nor the remarriage of divorcees are prohibited by the US government. The government regulates civil marriage, which is a secular matter.

Individual churches can decline to perform marriages for pretty much any reason. Surely Cornell already knows that, which makes his pearl-clutching all the more disingenuous.

[thoughtful]

:clap:

Brava, as ever, Burris.

Another wonderful side-effect of letting idiots speak is that they generally hoist themselves by their own petard.

Of course, if Cornell is actually wearing pearls, he has some 'splainin' to do, Lucy! :D

[Alecto]

I think it’s important that people like Cornell should be allowed to express their views without fear of economic or even physical reprisal. One problem with trying to curtail free speech is that any such effort will only drive the speech underground and thus imbue it with the aura of dangerous truth. Better that society should face this speech head-on and dismantle these kinds of arguments point by point.

I have to disagree with you on the economic reprisal. Part of exercising free speech is also accepting the consequences, and if someone espouses those views, then other people should have, in that same right of free association, the right and moral obligation to not patronize said people who espouse those beliefs. If they suffer economic hardship because of their bigotry, that's on their head.

However, I do agree we shouldn't threaten them physically, nor should we actually impede their businesses with protests (unless their business actively does something bigoted, like ban homosexuals)

[valsa]

I have to disagree with you on the economic reprisal. Part of exercising free speech is also accepting the consequences, and if someone espouses those views, then other people should have, in that same right of free association, the right and moral obligation to not patronize said people who espouse those beliefs. If they suffer economic hardship because of their bigotry, that's on their head.

However, I do agree we shouldn't threaten them physically, nor should we actually impede their businesses with protests (unless their business actively does something bigoted, like ban homosexuals)

I agree. The right to voice your opinions is protected for everyone but there is no protection from the consequences of voicing your opinions. If someone owns a business and I don't like what they have to say about homosexuality, there's absolutely no reason I shouldn't avoid their business and advise my friends and family to do the same.

[Burris]

I have to disagree with you on the economic reprisal. Part of exercising free speech is also accepting the consequences, and if someone espouses those views, then other people should have, in that same right of free association, the right and moral obligation to not patronize said people who espouse those beliefs. If they suffer economic hardship because of their bigotry, that's on their head.

However, I do agree we shouldn't threaten them physically, nor should we actually impede their businesses with protests (unless their business actively does something bigoted, like ban homosexuals)

Yeah - on second thought, my comment was a bit sloppy. I think boycotts are a part of freedom - but I don't think people should, for example, be fired from an unrelated job for expressing unpopular opinions during his or her off-time.

[thoughtful]

I have to disagree with you on the economic reprisal. Part of exercising free speech is also accepting the consequences, and if someone espouses those views, then other people should have, in that same right of free association, the right and moral obligation to not patronize said people who espouse those beliefs. If they suffer economic hardship because of their bigotry, that's on their head.

I missed that "economic." I do agree with Alecto -- I often let my money (what little I have!) speak for me. To me, that includes things like not buying a product if their ads offend or annoy me. So I certainly have no problem not spending my money with bigots.

Burris, were you referring to something more Draconian than just not getting the business of people who who don't want to support bigotry?

ETA -- we cross-posted -- question answered! :D

[BlackHawk]

You know what... I'll take the opinion of forcing people to "go gay" when we have "pray away the straight" therapies. Until then, no one is forcing you to "go gay" and no one is forcing their lifestyle on you.

[ladypuglover]

I agree. The right to voice your opinions is protected for everyone but there is no protection from the consequences of voicing your opinions. If someone owns a business and I don't like what they have to say about homosexuality, there's absolutely no reason I shouldn't avoid their business and advise my friends and family to do the same.

I agree with valsa. :clap:

[Soulhuntress]

I agree with valsa. :clap:

This +1 (stereotype) can I please have teh homos come help me pick out paint for my living room? We need a queer eye for this project. And teh lesbians to help DH with projects? Thanks! (stereotype = off)

[MamaJunebug]

You know what... I'll take the opinion of forcing people to "go gay" when we have "pray away the straight" therapies. Until then, no one is forcing you to "go gay" and no one is forcing their lifestyle on you.

Excellent observation, BlackHawk.