Wednesday, February 22, 2006

In Defense of Discrimination

Wow, you must be thinking. That's a rather cheeky title to an article. Actually, it's an attempt to look at a VERY controversial subject through another lens.

In USA Today's February 22 front page, there is a story about the gay-sheepherder film "Brokeback Mountain" and its Oscar chances. The very first sentence ought to speak volumes, but I bet it passes through most heads. "It has yet to win an Academy Award. It has never been the No. 1 film in theaters. Not that many people have seen it. Yet Brokeback Mountain is already The Movie."

Now doesn't that say something? Of course, the Oscars have always had films winning occasionally that raised eyebrows a bit, but this is something that ought to leap out at people. Not that many people have seen it, yet it is being treated like Moses coming down the mountain with the tablets.

Many have wondered why such a tiny minority have been able to commandeer so much attention and force things their way in recent years. Aside from the odd notion that a behavior should be seen as a civil right, something just doesn't sit just right, does it? This should illustrate more than anything else how this is largely a media-driven event..propaganda every bit as much as something produced during World War II. Tell a lie, a big lie...and tell it often enough. Sooner or later, people begin believing it. The far-left has been in control of educational establishments for decades as well as the mainstream media. They have never been in lockstep with the rest of us..people they consider the "great unwashed." They will continue to do this and get away with it until the majority finally has enough of it and takes control back. Education, media, legislatures, courts..you name it.

Far from being "bigoted," the majority of people in this country are opposed to homosexuality because they believe it is morally wrong. Discriminating against what is wrong is a good thing. Sadly, discrimination has become a loaded term connected with "rights." There is a good kind of discrimination, such as you want people you love to avoid things that will lead ultimately to their destruction. Participation in evil is a behavior, but it is not a "right." Alan Keyes put it well a few years ago. "You do not have the right to do what is wrong." Wrong behavior may well be tolerated, but it is not a right.

People would, more likely than not, leave those who practice this kind of lifestyle alone if they would leave the rest of society alone. But they're going too far now. Rather than be content with being left alone, they insist that their lifestyle be accepted as normal, right and good. Because they are being so "in your face" about it, they may well get the opposite of what they want. Only time will tell.

3 comments:

Rob said...

Sola,

I enjoyed this post. From one of those far lefters who have apparently commandeered the education system :) I'd like to say I tend to agree with you for the most part.

There is however a distinct difference between morality and legal morality. The question of gay marriage for me has always been a question of legal morality. I'll tell you what I mean.

Common Law partners have the same rights as married couples in Canada and many U.S. states. I think that cohabitation is morally wrong (from a Christian view), but I think from a legal perspective it really makes sense. (Because I can't and don't want to legislate sexual morality among consenting adults).

Given the reality of this legal morality, denying 2 homosexual men the same rights is very hypocritical. But again, because I think legislating sexual morality is a very slippery slope to Big Brother. This was the problem with Sodomy laws in the South.

The argument saying if we let 2 gay men marry then what about polygamists, what about children etc doesn't wash against my argument. I'm talking about legislating sexual morality amongst adults where every person is respected and their rights as an individual are defended in the law. Obviously protecting children is the duty of the state, or protecting those who can't protect themselves (women in polygamist marriages).

Your children and your children's children are going to look at homosexuality as a civil rights issue. Check out the polling of high school kids. I'm not sure you're going to be in the majority much longer.

Rob

SolaMeanie said...

Thanks, Rob. Interesting comments, and I mean that sincerely.

I can see how one could make a distinction between legal morality and morality. Given that we live in a fallen world, there are lots of things that are "legal" but not necessarily right or moral in an eternal, judicial sense.

I guess I have to look at it this way. God is sovereign and His Word is the last word regardless of what our human governments decide. Nations are going to be held accountable and their "statutes" won't matter before His throne. His statutes are the ones that will stand. We obviously do not live in a theocracy as Israel was in Old Testament times. That was for a specific purpose. However, Romans draws out a clear understanding of how governments are supposed to function and they are still responsible before God.

In America, we were founded on Christian principles. It is telling that one of our founding fathers said that our Constitution and laws were intended for a "moral people." They wouldn't work any other way. I believe that is being borne out in our present day. As morality continues to fall, our society degenerates. We have polarization because one segment of society no longer wants to live under any kind of moral constraint. The other wants to adhere to a strict moral code. There lies the conflict.

You may well be right about those who hold my point of view not being in the majority much longer. But even if we are eventually a minority, that doesn't make our view wrong. Remember God's discussion with Abraham over the fate of Sodom? God couldn't find ten righteous men in the whole city. In Sodom, the majority ruled and set their law in place. Where is Sodom now?

Rob said...

Sola,

I agree. Both our countries (I'm Canadian) were founded on Christian principles and both have strayed from that foundation. It's just that from my perspective the conservative Christian argument against gay marriage holds a lot more water if I see Christians protesting common Law marriage as well. I guess my question is what's the difference? In fact there's lots more in the Bible about sex before marriage, then homosexuality.

It really worries me (and this is where the civil rights part comes in) that I'm wondering whether the big deal against homosexuality is that we don't understand it. I get sex between a man and a woman. I'm attracted to women and I'm married to one. I don't get same sex attraction.

Whatever those folks are feeling is completely different then what I'm feeling. The thought of it makes me uncomfortable. So I'm against it because it makes me uncomfortable. Give these Gay couples at least as many rights as cohabitating couples. Do that then my civil rights argument goes away.

Another way to look at this is the sheer number. What proportion of our population is gay? At most 10%, more likely 3-5%. Why not focus our time on calling out a much larger moral issue of cohabitation. We see that in the media (but Focus on The Family didn't boycott NBC when Monica and Chandler on Friends moved in together). Sorry if that reference sounded bitter I just used it as an example.

I come from a very questioning generation. I'm not the only one who is asking these questions. I know how frustrating it is for those who see this as black and white. But I guess my comment would be see it all as black and white or none of it as black and white, and deal with the big issues first. Co-habitation is a much bigger deal then gay marriage!

Rob