Just who are the bigots here, anyway?
But it is not bigotry to disapprove- either as a matter of personal taste or of moral and/or religious conviction- of a behavior. That's a point a whole lot of people are confused about these days.
Brendon Eich had personal convictions about the ethical status of homosexuality. More to the point, he did not believe that extending the status of marriage to gay and lesbian couples was good public policy. A case can be made to that effect on several practical, secular grounds. The institution of marriage has at its purpose a guarantee to women that they would have a partner to help support and raise their children, while offering to men a guarantee that the children the supported and raised would, in fact, be theirs. Thus, permanence and monogamy are inherent and foundational characteristics of the institution of marriage. But statistics from the Scandinavian countries for which the most complete and long-term data is available indicate that divorce rates for both gay and lesbian couples (especially the latter- which shouldn't be surprising since two-thirds of American divorces are initiated by the wife) are vastly higher than they are for the general population- and this at a time when divorce even among heterosexual couples is threatening the institution. Gay men are, after all, men, and it shouldn't be surprising that in relationships in which both partners are male and the possibility of pregnancy doesn't exist, gay men on average have over a hundred sexual partners in their lifetimes, compared to an average of nine for straight men, or that a high percentage of male homosexual relationships include no expectation of monogamy!
"Marriage equality?" The term suggests that the issue at stake was whether or not to extend access to the institution of marriage to populations whose habits, behaviors, and customs as they relate to the most basic expectations of marriage were comparable to those of heterosexuals. And such was demonstrably not the case. The Supreme Court could have done better, in my opinion, simply to have ruled that states were obligated to provide the same legal rights and protections to such couples that the extend to married heterosexual couples without redefining marriage. Gay and lesbian couples might have been allowed to develop legally protected parallel institutions more tolerant in concept of the "open" nature of some gay male relationships and of what seems, from the more plentiful data from other countries, to be a significantly higher divorce rate among both gay and lesbian couples without putting further strain on an already beleaguered institution defined by monogamy and, at least in theory, permanence.
But strictly speaking, even opposition to extending marriage to gays and lesbians for bad or illogical reasons does not in itself constitute bigotry. True, bigotry may lay behind one's professed reasons for that position. If so, the actual reasons need to be exposed and addressed. But the mere fact of such opposition simply does not make one a bigot.
That didn't help Brandon Eich, who contributed to an organization which opposed marriage redefinition (inaccurately, shamelessly, and pretty much universally termed "marriage equality" by the partisan media). Neither his reasons nor his reasoning mattered. There was no evidence that he had ever treated gays or lesbians badly, or engaged in disparaging talk about them. Yet his mere opposition to marriage redefinition was enough to get him labeled a bigot and a hater, despite any evidence whatsoever that he was either. And it cost him his job.
Dan Cathy, the owner of Chick-fil-A, has endured a boycott of his business (fortunately less than successful) for essentially the same reason. There is no evidence that he has ever mistreated a gay person or a lesbian, or spoken disparagingly about either. Yet he continues to be portrayed, without any justification whatsoever, as a bigot and a hater.
Now Russell Berger, a high-ranking executive of CrossFit, a large chain of gyms, has lost his job. It seems that an Indianapolis gym canceled a scheduled workout in honor of Pride Month because the operator personally believes that homosexual behavior as a sin and didn't feel comfortable hosting an event which promoted it. Memberships were canceled and staff resigned in protest. Such was absolutely their right. But it was also the right of the operator to follow his own personal religious convictions- misguided or not- and decline to help celebrate an event which flaunted his religious beliefs. And it was Burger's right to tweet his agreement with that principle.
It was nobody's right to slander either the operator or Burger by claiming that they were malicious in maintaining that people ought not to be forced to violate their own religious beliefs. In fact, it is the making of such a claim that is bigotry. Though numerous liberal church bodies who have never been all that keen on the authority of the Bible have disregarded this fact, historical Christianity has always taught that homosexual behavior is sinful, and the eisegetical attempts of liberal theologians and churches to claim otherwise doesn't alter the fact that by no honest means can any other view be reconciled with either Testament.
Traditional Christians have the right to believe that homosexual behavior is sinful. Moreover, they have a right to do so without being represented as malicious or characterized as bigots, which such a belief simply does not make them. And they have a right to conduct their own behavior in accordance with those religious beliefs. That does not make them bigots, nor does it make them guilty of discrimination.
One cannot discriminate against a behavior.
On the contrary, it is those who try to compel them to violate their religious beliefs or who slander them because they hold them who are the bigots. It is they who are malicious. They no more have any business telling people what behaviors they can believe to be morally wrong and what behaviors they can't than Christians have to tell gay men or lesbians or anyone else what sexual behaviors they may think are right or wrong when carried on privately between consenting adults!
This may come as a shock to some on the Left, but an attempt to persuade others of a viewpoint or simply to express that viewpoint in public is not the same as coercing or harassing anyone. Doing so violates nobody's rights. Do people have a right to disagree with conservative Christians about their beliefs regarding homosexuality? Absolutely! Nor are they under any more obligation to approve of Christianity's teaching about homosexual behavior than Christians are to approve of homosexual behavior itself!
Do they have a right to seek to convince Christians that their beliefs are wrong? Absolutely! To advance a viewpoint or to argue in favor of a position is not to compel anyone to do or not to do anything. And for exactly the same reasons, Christians who believe that homosexual behavior is destructive and/or morally wrong have every right to express that opinion without having their motivations maliciously called into question.
David French of The National Review puts it well:
It is possible to have different ethical beliefs from someone and still treat them with dignity and respect. In fact, we've been doing it for millennia. Countless Christians and others with ethical problems with homosexual behavior are treating gays and lesbians with dignity and respect and even love all over the Western world every day. In fact, a gay former member of the gym in Indianapolis who terminated his membership over the cancelation of the gay pride event described his reaction to the cancelation by saying, "I didn't know what to think, because like I said everybody was so friendly and welcoming."
Yeah. Like malicious, hate-filled bigots always are.
To disapprove of somebody's behavior- even for misguided or foolish reasons- does not make one a bigot. Nor does it mean that one hates that person. This is a fact so self-evident that its a little amazing that it even needs to be made. But until the gay and lesbian community and the cultural left generally recognizes and accept it (as indeed many gays and lesbians do, as individuals), we are going to continue to be emotionally and vehemently divided over what simply ought not to be an issue at all: the right of people to believe what seems reasonable to them and conduct their own lives accordingly without having their motives called into question, and certainly without losing their jobs.
After all, isn't that what the LGBTQ movement supposedly stands for?
"Marriage equality?" The term suggests that the issue at stake was whether or not to extend access to the institution of marriage to populations whose habits, behaviors, and customs as they relate to the most basic expectations of marriage were comparable to those of heterosexuals. And such was demonstrably not the case. The Supreme Court could have done better, in my opinion, simply to have ruled that states were obligated to provide the same legal rights and protections to such couples that the extend to married heterosexual couples without redefining marriage. Gay and lesbian couples might have been allowed to develop legally protected parallel institutions more tolerant in concept of the "open" nature of some gay male relationships and of what seems, from the more plentiful data from other countries, to be a significantly higher divorce rate among both gay and lesbian couples without putting further strain on an already beleaguered institution defined by monogamy and, at least in theory, permanence.
But strictly speaking, even opposition to extending marriage to gays and lesbians for bad or illogical reasons does not in itself constitute bigotry. True, bigotry may lay behind one's professed reasons for that position. If so, the actual reasons need to be exposed and addressed. But the mere fact of such opposition simply does not make one a bigot.
That didn't help Brandon Eich, who contributed to an organization which opposed marriage redefinition (inaccurately, shamelessly, and pretty much universally termed "marriage equality" by the partisan media). Neither his reasons nor his reasoning mattered. There was no evidence that he had ever treated gays or lesbians badly, or engaged in disparaging talk about them. Yet his mere opposition to marriage redefinition was enough to get him labeled a bigot and a hater, despite any evidence whatsoever that he was either. And it cost him his job.
Dan Cathy, the owner of Chick-fil-A, has endured a boycott of his business (fortunately less than successful) for essentially the same reason. There is no evidence that he has ever mistreated a gay person or a lesbian, or spoken disparagingly about either. Yet he continues to be portrayed, without any justification whatsoever, as a bigot and a hater.
Now Russell Berger, a high-ranking executive of CrossFit, a large chain of gyms, has lost his job. It seems that an Indianapolis gym canceled a scheduled workout in honor of Pride Month because the operator personally believes that homosexual behavior as a sin and didn't feel comfortable hosting an event which promoted it. Memberships were canceled and staff resigned in protest. Such was absolutely their right. But it was also the right of the operator to follow his own personal religious convictions- misguided or not- and decline to help celebrate an event which flaunted his religious beliefs. And it was Burger's right to tweet his agreement with that principle.
It was nobody's right to slander either the operator or Burger by claiming that they were malicious in maintaining that people ought not to be forced to violate their own religious beliefs. In fact, it is the making of such a claim that is bigotry. Though numerous liberal church bodies who have never been all that keen on the authority of the Bible have disregarded this fact, historical Christianity has always taught that homosexual behavior is sinful, and the eisegetical attempts of liberal theologians and churches to claim otherwise doesn't alter the fact that by no honest means can any other view be reconciled with either Testament.
Traditional Christians have the right to believe that homosexual behavior is sinful. Moreover, they have a right to do so without being represented as malicious or characterized as bigots, which such a belief simply does not make them. And they have a right to conduct their own behavior in accordance with those religious beliefs. That does not make them bigots, nor does it make them guilty of discrimination.
One cannot discriminate against a behavior.
On the contrary, it is those who try to compel them to violate their religious beliefs or who slander them because they hold them who are the bigots. It is they who are malicious. They no more have any business telling people what behaviors they can believe to be morally wrong and what behaviors they can't than Christians have to tell gay men or lesbians or anyone else what sexual behaviors they may think are right or wrong when carried on privately between consenting adults!
This may come as a shock to some on the Left, but an attempt to persuade others of a viewpoint or simply to express that viewpoint in public is not the same as coercing or harassing anyone. Doing so violates nobody's rights. Do people have a right to disagree with conservative Christians about their beliefs regarding homosexuality? Absolutely! Nor are they under any more obligation to approve of Christianity's teaching about homosexual behavior than Christians are to approve of homosexual behavior itself!
Do they have a right to seek to convince Christians that their beliefs are wrong? Absolutely! To advance a viewpoint or to argue in favor of a position is not to compel anyone to do or not to do anything. And for exactly the same reasons, Christians who believe that homosexual behavior is destructive and/or morally wrong have every right to express that opinion without having their motivations maliciously called into question.
David French of The National Review puts it well:
If Russell Berger mistreated any person on the job, then he should be fired. If he merely advocated and celebrated the tenets of a faith that seeks to honor and glorify God, then disagree with him all you like, but leave his livelihood alone.
It is possible to have different ethical beliefs from someone and still treat them with dignity and respect. In fact, we've been doing it for millennia. Countless Christians and others with ethical problems with homosexual behavior are treating gays and lesbians with dignity and respect and even love all over the Western world every day. In fact, a gay former member of the gym in Indianapolis who terminated his membership over the cancelation of the gay pride event described his reaction to the cancelation by saying, "I didn't know what to think, because like I said everybody was so friendly and welcoming."
Yeah. Like malicious, hate-filled bigots always are.
To disapprove of somebody's behavior- even for misguided or foolish reasons- does not make one a bigot. Nor does it mean that one hates that person. This is a fact so self-evident that its a little amazing that it even needs to be made. But until the gay and lesbian community and the cultural left generally recognizes and accept it (as indeed many gays and lesbians do, as individuals), we are going to continue to be emotionally and vehemently divided over what simply ought not to be an issue at all: the right of people to believe what seems reasonable to them and conduct their own lives accordingly without having their motives called into question, and certainly without losing their jobs.
After all, isn't that what the LGBTQ movement supposedly stands for?
Comments