Are you a hate-monger and a bigot?

Once again we learn that there is no public safe zone for disagreeing with gay marriage. Just ask the Benham brothers and Miami Dolphins safety, Don Jones.  

Is it even possible anymore to believe that marriage is meant for male and female without being accused of hate or bigotry? It’s certainly not if we grant the false premise that being gay is equal with one’s race. We need to be more honest about the manipulative agenda behind this comparison and where it’s leading us.

If we make the sexual choices of individuals a matter of civil-rights comparable to race and gender, we’ll open a social and legal Pandora’s box. Citizens will not be permitted to morally oppose homosexual behavior without risking accusations of discrimination, hate and racism. Federal law will be used against the freedoms of Americans who choose to believe and teach a different view of marriage and sexuality.

It is foolish to treat sexual preferences as equivalent with race or gender. There is no conclusive evidence that supports such a comparison. But the comparison is what feeds accusations of bigotry, hate and legal claims of discrimination. I know many people who are morally opposed to homosexuality but are not at all discriminatory or hateful toward those who choose a different sexual lifestyle. I am one of them.
We must expose this race comparison as a manipulative threat to civility and liberty. It also runs the risk of creating a counter group who could claim discrimination against their freedoms to believe and teach their own morality. Where will this path lead us as a nation? Where is it leading us now? Ask the Benham brothers and NFL player, Don Jones.  

 

If someone dares to publicly say that he does not agree with gay marriage, he is likely to be reprimanded and possibly hatefully ostracized. We can trash Tim Tebow for his faith without consequence but we dare not say anything about Michael Sam’s preference for sex with men. Those who openly flaunt their homosexuality must not be challenged in any way. Perhaps Michael Sam will be “uncuttable” as a player now. 

Those who oppose gay marriage on moral grounds are now being subjected to discrimination and exclusion in ways that will only incite anger in a free nation. To deny people their freedoms and falsely accuse them of hateful motivations only causes civil unrest.

Those who take a different view on homosexual behavior are now the targets of condescending ridicule, hate speech, name-calling and scornful ad hominem. This behavior is a violation of the kind of civil debate we need in democratic process. It’s also coercion and manipulation of the worst kind.

If you oppose gay marriage, you’re told that you have irrational phobias; that you’re a hate-monger, bigot and guilty of discrimination. Why do people allow this kind of school-yard bullying to scare them into acquiescing to a militant agenda to force one sexual lifestyle on the vast majority of Americans?

Teaching people to treat each other with respect is a better alternative to forced affirmation. Tolerance is about treating others with respect when you disagree with them. Telling people they’re not permitted to disagree is coercion, not tolerance.

It’s ironic how the intolerance and bigotry that was once wrongly shown toward people who chose a gay lifestyle is now aimed at anyone who dares to oppose homosexual behavior. 

We must see through the vicious rhetoric and courageously hold our convictions about marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman. This isn’t about the rights of consenting adults to do what they wish sexually. They have those rights. This is about an arrogant insistence that the entire nation change its definition of marriage to conform to the sexual choices of two percent of the people.

Steve Cornell

See – Sexual preference or Sexual orientation?

 

 

13 comments on “Are you a hate-monger and a bigot?

  1. Amy Newman says:

    Bigotry is a view point and you should be called out for it as much as you wrote this bigoted article. You can’t choose your sexual attraction anymore then you can choose the color of your skin. The failure to see this and the attempts to belittle it are all fulfilled by anti-gay bigotry. Please do not tell us that you oppose gay marriage on moral grounds when that very statement says that your morals are questionable at best. If you have a religion then that’s your choice but please don’t try to rub your chosen lifestyle choices onto the LGBT.

    • So there is no public safe zone for disagreeing with gay marriage? And it is impossible to hold a moral opinion that marriage is meant for male and female without being accused of hate or bigotry?

      If someone asked me if I chose my heterosexuality, I am not sure what he means or what answering this question would accomplish. I think the question is designed to trace the origins of sexual orientation to unalterable conditions of birth. But even if I was born with a precondition to be sexually attracted to women, it doesn’t mean that this attraction is automatically right. It might be on some accounts but could also be wrong in many cases.

      Answering source questions will not necessarily lead to moral assessments of sexual conduct. Morality has to do with right and wrong. Source questions are more often complex. Sources can include genetic, cultural, experiential and social contributors. But sources cannot force me to behave in a certain way. They can exercise strong influence but I must make choices in relation to the influences. Respect for human dignity and treating sexual acts as punishable demand that we view sexuality as a volitional matter. This means, among other things, that I must look to other places rather than sources for deciding matters of right and wrong regarding sexuality.

      If an adulterous woman complains that her adultery (i.e. her wrongful heterosexual behavior) was because of her distant and uncaring husband, we might be sympathetic toward her situation but we cannot endorse her behavior (at least, I cannot).

      The simple and reasonable fact is that choices must be made about sexual conduct and determinations in some cases must be reached about right and wrong.

      • Scola says:

        Do you in turn believe adultery should be criminal? What should be the sentence?

        There are matters where we judge right and wrong, but as a free society we leave these ultimately to the individual. We, as a state, do not impose ourselves into those personal affairs. We make no legal distinction between the adulterer and the faithful spouse. We do not immediately annul the marriage. We leave it as a matter for the couple to work through.

        By doing so we reaffirm ourselves as a society based on liberty and not coercion in personal matters.

      • Amy Newman says:

        You have as much of a public safe zone as people who are against interracial marriage. You can protest about it, march about it, yell about it. How ever we have a right to point out what you’re doing is terribly bigoted. You’re never going to go to jail for your views on it but people have the freedom to call you out on it. Finally there is zero moral opinions against gay marriage. The moral stance is on the other side. You’re the one trying to block loving families from marriage.

        Sexual attraction is actually easier to think of if you take a minute. Focus on how you feel when you see a pretty girl. Some people on the inside have their heart race, their arm pits sweat or the mumble when talking to the person. This is the same thing people feel when they see attraction of either sex. As a bisexual woman I can tell you theres no difference. To say that being gay is a ‘choice’ would be paramount to you saying that “I can make pretty people ugly” in my view. Doesn’t even make sense.

        First of all we know being gay is natural (It’s older then the human species.) So the question of is it natural is off the books. Is it right or wrong means just as much as does being heterosexual make your write or wrong. The answer is none of the above. Being gay or straight just matters to which type of humans you’re attracted to. Not every question that you ask has a good or bad answer. How ever we can answer will allowing gay marriage be beneficial for the gay couples? Yes. Will it be disadvantageous to straight couples? No. So the moral high ground as I’ve stated…is with the LGBT.

      • The race comparison is false and manipulative. It lacks any credible evidence. Nor is there credible evidence that “we know being gay is natural (It’s older then the human species.)” We do not know this by trustworthy evidence. Further most of history is on the other side. Every major faith tradition views homosexual conduct as immoral. What should they do with their beliefs and morals?

      • Scola says:

        People of faith should be free to hold their moral beliefs about gay individuals. However, you must understand that a significant number of people find those beliefs immoral. When you are called a bigot, this is nothing more than others imposing moral judgement on you. I happen to agree with that judgement.

        However, all of us should be able to agree society works best when we don’t codify moral judgement into law. Society works when people are free and equal regardless of their moral shortcomings. Those of us who believe you immoral will defend to our deaths your right to practice this immoral behavior.

        If you wish to disapprove of gay people and continue to hold views that are morally reprehensible you have no choice but to support the rights of those you morally disapprove of. For the question is not can gay people be made free, the question is are we free.

      • Amy Newman says:

        Uhh yes we do know that being gay is the same as your skin color and we do know that being gay is older then the human species. Humans have only been around for the past 100,000 years. Being gay is in 400+ species of animals many of which are older then our own species. This what I’m talking about when it comes to your bigotry. You ignore then evidence and then say “Theres still a discussion.” Not in the scientific community there isn’t. You sound like the people who are against evolution even though the overwhelming amount of evidence shows just how factual it is.

        Every major faith does not view being gay as immoral. Only the Arabic ones (Orthox Judiasm, Christabnity and Islam) and all three of those religions…well are made up by humans. Hindu, Native American and Eastern religions accept being gay with open arms. The simple answer is change how your faith views it or leave your faith. Obviously if they’re not very moral if they’re against gay marriage.

  2. Scola says:

    It is possible to morally disapprove of gay marriage. While a minority, a not unsubstantial percent of Americans disapprove of mixed-race marriages.

    However, the standard for codifying a moral judgement into law is much higher than simply holding a moral opinion. You must show a societal benefit from that law. Some party must be harmed. This is why the anti-marriage equality proponents focus so heavily on procreation and childrearing even long after their arguments have been obliterated in court after court. Personal moral revulsion alone is not enough to legislate away the rights of others.

    In the case of race, laws against mixed race marriages came tumbling down when we as a society decided that mixed-race children were not, in fact, a societal harm…something we have well established by elected such a person as our President.

    If you wish to oppose gay marriage you must make a logical case why denying rights to others benefits society. You may hold whatever moral beliefs you like, but you cannot impose them upon others.

  3. theibbo says:

    First you ignored us, then you laughed at us, then you fought us, next we win.
    A little inspiration from Gandhi. People like you, Mr Cornell are at the stage of fighting us, twisting the facts and turning yourselves into the victim. You are in an echo chamber that’s getting smaller by the day. Next – we win. Please keep writing, you’re only emboldening us further.

  4. Joey says:

    Re: “Is it possible to hold a moral opinion that marriage is meant for male and female without being accused of hate or bigotry?”

    Steve, I read your blog, and no where in it is there a “moral” reason for opposing gay citizens receiving Constitutionally promised Equal Protections of the law. If you have a moral objection to treating SOME citizens UN-equally, please make it and stop whining that you get “ridicule, name-calling and scornful ad hominem”. (Like gay people don’t get the exact same things?)

    You complain of “being subjected to discrimination and exclusion in ways that only incite anger”, but refuse to acknowledge that gay people are subjected to the exact same things. (You do sort of decry “the intolerance and bigotry that was once wrongly shown toward” gay people – as if it doesn’t continue today – but then you dilute even that by calling us “people who chose a gay lifestyle”. It is neither a “lifestyle” nor a “choice”. And it is THESE lies that earn you any labels that seem to sting you so.)

    The only thing human sexuality has in common with race is that both are innate human characteristics, both of which are morally neutral in and of themselves. This is neither “manipulative” nor “a threat to civility and liberty”; it’s just fact.

    Human sexuality ISN’T a “lifestyle”. And, heterosexuals “flaunt” their sexuality/attraction/relationships – you simply don’t see it because it’s so common. (Eg.: When a man says, “This is my wife Sally”, he is saying he is heterosexual. When I say, “This is my husband Ian”, your side call it “flaunting it”. When YOU put a picture of your girlfriend/spouse on your desk at work, you’re “displaying family values”. When I do it, I’m “shoving it in your face”. Can you even begin to see the dichotomy, Steve?)

    I rarely use the word “hate”, but when I do, it’s in conjunction with people comparing same-gender couples’ loving, committed, consenting, adult, human relationships to things like “child-molestation”, “rape”, “necrophilia”, “bestiality” sex with inanimate objects/children/animals/plants and as “worse than terrorists”. This is NOT the “civil debate” you call for in your blog.

    YOU don’t use those terms (either in your blog or here), so you don’t earn the label “hater”.

    But, as for “bigot”, well, you ARE obviously prejudiced. Explain why that label isn’t appropriate?

    You’re perfectly free to “courageously hold [y]our convictions about marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman”, but with a 51% divorce rate among heterosexuals, with serial heterosexual cheaters like Newt Gingrich, with heterosexuals having reduced marriage to a TV game-show prize, with Britney Spears’s 55-hour long heterosexual marriage, with drunk heterosexuals marrying someone they literally just met before an Elvis impersonator in Vegas, well, pardon us if we don’t really see heterosexual marriage as all that “sacred”. (Sounds like you’re confusing/conflating the religious rite of holy matrimony with the secular, civil right of civil marriage, which is governed by civil laws. If so, just remember, America isn’t a theocracy, and that no religious rite – by itself – makes a couple legally married.)

    You call ours a “militant agenda”. WE call it being treated equally before the law, and as such, our “agenda” resembles the Constitution.

    In your blog, you tout, “teaching people to treat each other with respect”. Sorry Steve, but that is going to have to start with YOU.

  5. Rob says:

    100% of identical twins, when one is born black/white/whatever, the other is identical. Not so when one twin is homosexual. Yes, there is a higher correlation of two siblings being homosexual when they are twins…but there is also a component of a similar nurture environment. But regardless of nurture, twins of one race share the same race. Interestingly, civil rights champion Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t see homosexuality as equal to race, as evidenced by his own words penned in an “Advice for Living” column in Ebony Magazine in 1958, and from those who knew him well: http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/blogs/bostonspirit/2013/01/would_martin_luther_king_jr_ha.html

    So, while we can have discourse on innateness of same sex attraction, and the morality of acting on those attractions, etc, we can dispense with using analogies of race.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s