Hate Speech is Indeed a Crime, Part II
After posting my latest home page piece, I realized I should probably blog a bit about all the stuff included in the idea of speech. Yes, I'll never blog enough to cover all the things I wanted to write, all the things I'm still thinking about it all. This is why a critical component is that we're talking about it with others, indefinitely, just talking.
To make it more concrete, this is the idea that if you want to have a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex, as long as it is consensual, then it is perfectly fine, and that if someone objects then he/she is to be reviled openly in some way as too narrow-minded or bigoted or homophobic. Where on earth did people, now in droves, reasonably adopt such an idea?
Now there is a place where they got that idea, and if you look at my home page piece, you may get started on that course.
The point is, what is the situation with this idea now being considered mainstream acceptable?
Am I able to share -- openly and boldly and articulately -- truthful speech about sodomy's horrifically destructive consequences? Am I able to share that I do so because I care about the individuals involved in their destruction? Am I able to make an extraordinarily strong case against their pathetically inadequate attempts to justify it? Am I able to detail the reasons for my position, including my view that there should indeed be a law in place to prohibit such behavior but that there is also a loving Savior who heals and restores and completely forgives those who act on their same-sex attractions? Am I able to do this in the safe environment they expect without the listener resorting to name-calling -- in the truest sense of what Mill sought?
Thing is, if Mill is right, then unrighteous and destructive ideas should justly be rejected.
I'd like to share a story with you about this very point. It helps make the case.
About a year ago I attended a lecture at one of the Claremont Colleges, as I frequently do. Most are filled by a few fan-boys of the speaker, students who must be there for credit, and a smattering of others -- not too well attended. This particular one, however, was packed.
The speakers were two women who'd fought in the courts to get married, and they were regaling everyone with the story of their struggle. They showed slides with images of the protesters and supporters and others who helped them along the way. The substance of their presentation was mostly about the legal and political challenges they faced.
Needless to say the audience was very supportive, overwhelmingly so. This is the new civil rights struggle, especially prominent on campuses. Make sure everyone gets the freedom to do what they want in the bedroom. Damn -- never mind that colleges right now are going insane having to address the rampant sexual assault cases that result from this mentality.
Anyway, afterwards there was a question and answer period, and while I knew I would not get a chance to ask my question (too many in attendance and preferences go to students, so they almost always are the only ones asking questions), I want to share it with you now. Here was the question I wanted to ask.
"Please do not mistake me for a marriage pluralist, which means I would be someone who even though I have some passing preference for marriage only between a man and a woman I'm perfectly fine with your pretend marriage. No, you should know that I am a marriage upholder, which means it should be fully accepted that it is a crime for anyone to have a sexual relationship with anyone other than an adult of the opposite sex to which one is married..."
Now, I haven't even gotten to the question here, but I think in honor of Mills I should let people know precisely where I'm coming from. But really, how many people in that room would have already not only tuned me out but would be judging me as someone worse than a Nazi war criminal? Why? Oh, I know why, but these are supposed to be the most enlightened brightest individuals on the planet.
Also, it is true, yes, that I don't really have to preface my question with a statement that will only negatively color what they all think of me. But then again, who's fault is that? I also shared this preface because it is why I wrote a similar thing in my home page piece. You may catch it there.
Okay, here's the question.
"Do you think people should be able to have a fully sexual experience with an animal, or a dead person, or a lamppost, or a four-year-old girl, or all of them at the same time for that matter? Are you okay with that, or are you not? Yes or no?"
What would their answer be? Before I continue, their answer, whatever it is, thoroughly discredits their position. Can you see why? Think about it. I'll give you a minute. While you're doing that, the homosexualist voice often tries to argue against the question by dismissing the merits of the question itself. "Slippery slope you say? Pshaw. That's just stupid." They do this all the time, and say nothing. Now these two may have responded this way, but they'd still be evading the question.
They still do have a feeling about the question.
Let's say they answer it.
If they respond, "Yes, we think that's okay. Full marriage equality, to each his or her own, full sexual freedom that's what we're about."
First of all, I don't think anyone in their right mind would endorse such a thing. But to be truly consistent with their position, they have to. How often do I hear the words "marriage equality" or "marriage inclusivity". Really? Does that include my marriage to my dog? The lamppost out front -- really, it does love me. I want to marry my grandmother, we're in love, but she's dead -- that shouldn't matter though! Total freedom and equality and inclusion, that's what we're all about.
See, right away this reveals the bankruptcy of their position. But that's just the righteousness aspect. Most people do indeed see the wretched unrighteousness of those things, and yes they do wholly endorse law enforcement policies and practices to prevent them.
What about the logical aspect? It too destroys their claims. That is this:
If they're in favor of whatever-whoever-however when it comes to sexual experiences, then what in blazes are they doing here? Why are they here blithering about their marriage, when according to their view it can be anything they want it to be? In fact, if it can be for anyone anyhow for any reason, then why have marriage?
If these two women answer "Yes" to the question, then marriage is meaningless.
What are they then doing, telling us all about how they need the courts to decide this or that, or how they need public opinion to swing in their favor, or how government must sanction this or that particular "marriage" thing?
I know why. It is because much of this is merely their way to feel good about their wickedness, and the more and more people and courts and government offices to approve it then the better they can feel about it. Funny, who're being the intolerant ones here?
Now to the other answer to the question. What happens if instead of "Yes", they say "No". "No", they say, "we don't approve of those kinds of sexual behaviors."
Then I wonder, how can they be consistent with their own insistence that we all rally behind them and approve of their unrighteous sexual behavior?
And where do they draw the line? Do they draw the line at three people having a sexual encounter? Would they go so far as to say bestiality is okay but necrophilia is not? Where exactly on the sexual encounter between whoever continuum are they okay and where are they not?
Here's the key part of this:
Who decides where that is?
Yes, lots of people do lots of things, many times not very wholesome things, because it feels good. I got that. But who said we all have to be perfectly fine with people regularly engaging in sexual abuse crimes and saying nothing when the movements to get everyone to bow to the precepts of such activity become too entrenched?
Who said that point there on the continuum, namely the one allowing same-sex relationships to be openly and publicly celebrated, was the accepted one? Because if it was just whoever wants it to be there, then you're simply back to supporting true marriage inclusion, and that means you can do anything you want no matter how wicked.
But if there is a transcendent standard-giver, namely God, who said in both His word and in the natural order He created that the standard is a distinctly particular thing, then there is indeed a grounding for why anyone should or shouldn't do something. Furthermore since we can never be perfect in meeting that standard doesn't mean we shouldn't dismiss it in the name of "individual liberty" or "sexual freedom."
It does mean we can call on His name, and know that He does answer in the person of His Son Jesus Christ.
It is easy to see why I couldn't really ask that question in that setting. Oh did I want to.
But it involves continuing the conversation. I can do a small part by posting here in my blog, writing in my webzine to begin with. I could say a lot more here in this post, but it's long.
The conversation can go forever.
I do wonder, how many of those college students, if I were to ask the question, and if they were to hear what the response from those women was, would be able to determine that their entire enterprise is truly bankrupt?
And believe me, I don't revile those women or the students in attendance. I do feel for them, however. I do feel great sorrow for them, and can only pray that they'd be able to see the truth in all of it.
And the Grace as well...
___
(Technical note: For some reason the font isn't the way it is supposed to be. After cutting & pasting the quote from my webzine, I inadvertently continued to type with that font. For some reason Blogger can't cope with making the font the way it is regularly. I've messed with it, but it'll be fine. It still works, however. Thanks for your readership.)
That's a very good thing.
It is also why I should mention one of the top philosophers regarding this "freedom of speech" thing, and that is John Stuart Mill. I wanted to plug him into the home page piece, but I just couldn't find a place for him without messing with an already delicate cohesion.
But he deserves a mention. He argued that we should live in an environment where all our differences may be respected and there is opportunity for all views to be shared. If a particular view is considered irrational or unrighteous in some way, well then, we can all employ our level-headedness and sharpen our own thinking out of the reasonable comprehension of the ideas shared.
It sounds so noble.
The problem is that many people don't do that. Many people take in ideas that are wickedly reprehensible, ideas that are shared with tremendous sincerity and given vigorous weightiness, and they aren't justifiably rejected.
One such idea is one I noted in the home page piece, and again, I just felt compelled to elaborate. It is this one, transcribed from my webzine:
"It is best to endorse the behavior of people who do sexually untraditional things with one another in the name of celebrating our differences and embracing our individual liberties."
To make it more concrete, this is the idea that if you want to have a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex, as long as it is consensual, then it is perfectly fine, and that if someone objects then he/she is to be reviled openly in some way as too narrow-minded or bigoted or homophobic. Where on earth did people, now in droves, reasonably adopt such an idea?
Now there is a place where they got that idea, and if you look at my home page piece, you may get started on that course.
The point is, what is the situation with this idea now being considered mainstream acceptable?
Am I able to share -- openly and boldly and articulately -- truthful speech about sodomy's horrifically destructive consequences? Am I able to share that I do so because I care about the individuals involved in their destruction? Am I able to make an extraordinarily strong case against their pathetically inadequate attempts to justify it? Am I able to detail the reasons for my position, including my view that there should indeed be a law in place to prohibit such behavior but that there is also a loving Savior who heals and restores and completely forgives those who act on their same-sex attractions? Am I able to do this in the safe environment they expect without the listener resorting to name-calling -- in the truest sense of what Mill sought?
Thing is, if Mill is right, then unrighteous and destructive ideas should justly be rejected.
I'd like to share a story with you about this very point. It helps make the case.
About a year ago I attended a lecture at one of the Claremont Colleges, as I frequently do. Most are filled by a few fan-boys of the speaker, students who must be there for credit, and a smattering of others -- not too well attended. This particular one, however, was packed.
The speakers were two women who'd fought in the courts to get married, and they were regaling everyone with the story of their struggle. They showed slides with images of the protesters and supporters and others who helped them along the way. The substance of their presentation was mostly about the legal and political challenges they faced.
Needless to say the audience was very supportive, overwhelmingly so. This is the new civil rights struggle, especially prominent on campuses. Make sure everyone gets the freedom to do what they want in the bedroom. Damn -- never mind that colleges right now are going insane having to address the rampant sexual assault cases that result from this mentality.
Anyway, afterwards there was a question and answer period, and while I knew I would not get a chance to ask my question (too many in attendance and preferences go to students, so they almost always are the only ones asking questions), I want to share it with you now. Here was the question I wanted to ask.
"Please do not mistake me for a marriage pluralist, which means I would be someone who even though I have some passing preference for marriage only between a man and a woman I'm perfectly fine with your pretend marriage. No, you should know that I am a marriage upholder, which means it should be fully accepted that it is a crime for anyone to have a sexual relationship with anyone other than an adult of the opposite sex to which one is married..."
Now, I haven't even gotten to the question here, but I think in honor of Mills I should let people know precisely where I'm coming from. But really, how many people in that room would have already not only tuned me out but would be judging me as someone worse than a Nazi war criminal? Why? Oh, I know why, but these are supposed to be the most enlightened brightest individuals on the planet.
Also, it is true, yes, that I don't really have to preface my question with a statement that will only negatively color what they all think of me. But then again, who's fault is that? I also shared this preface because it is why I wrote a similar thing in my home page piece. You may catch it there.
Okay, here's the question.
"Do you think people should be able to have a fully sexual experience with an animal, or a dead person, or a lamppost, or a four-year-old girl, or all of them at the same time for that matter? Are you okay with that, or are you not? Yes or no?"
What would their answer be? Before I continue, their answer, whatever it is, thoroughly discredits their position. Can you see why? Think about it. I'll give you a minute. While you're doing that, the homosexualist voice often tries to argue against the question by dismissing the merits of the question itself. "Slippery slope you say? Pshaw. That's just stupid." They do this all the time, and say nothing. Now these two may have responded this way, but they'd still be evading the question.
They still do have a feeling about the question.
Let's say they answer it.
If they respond, "Yes, we think that's okay. Full marriage equality, to each his or her own, full sexual freedom that's what we're about."
First of all, I don't think anyone in their right mind would endorse such a thing. But to be truly consistent with their position, they have to. How often do I hear the words "marriage equality" or "marriage inclusivity". Really? Does that include my marriage to my dog? The lamppost out front -- really, it does love me. I want to marry my grandmother, we're in love, but she's dead -- that shouldn't matter though! Total freedom and equality and inclusion, that's what we're all about.
See, right away this reveals the bankruptcy of their position. But that's just the righteousness aspect. Most people do indeed see the wretched unrighteousness of those things, and yes they do wholly endorse law enforcement policies and practices to prevent them.
What about the logical aspect? It too destroys their claims. That is this:
If they're in favor of whatever-whoever-however when it comes to sexual experiences, then what in blazes are they doing here? Why are they here blithering about their marriage, when according to their view it can be anything they want it to be? In fact, if it can be for anyone anyhow for any reason, then why have marriage?
If these two women answer "Yes" to the question, then marriage is meaningless.
What are they then doing, telling us all about how they need the courts to decide this or that, or how they need public opinion to swing in their favor, or how government must sanction this or that particular "marriage" thing?
I know why. It is because much of this is merely their way to feel good about their wickedness, and the more and more people and courts and government offices to approve it then the better they can feel about it. Funny, who're being the intolerant ones here?
Now to the other answer to the question. What happens if instead of "Yes", they say "No". "No", they say, "we don't approve of those kinds of sexual behaviors."
Then I wonder, how can they be consistent with their own insistence that we all rally behind them and approve of their unrighteous sexual behavior?
And where do they draw the line? Do they draw the line at three people having a sexual encounter? Would they go so far as to say bestiality is okay but necrophilia is not? Where exactly on the sexual encounter between whoever continuum are they okay and where are they not?
Here's the key part of this:
Who decides where that is?
To cut to the chase, who decided it was okay for two people of the same sex to have a sexual encounter? Did they? Was it just they decided because it felt good?
Yes, lots of people do lots of things, many times not very wholesome things, because it feels good. I got that. But who said we all have to be perfectly fine with people regularly engaging in sexual abuse crimes and saying nothing when the movements to get everyone to bow to the precepts of such activity become too entrenched?
Who said that point there on the continuum, namely the one allowing same-sex relationships to be openly and publicly celebrated, was the accepted one? Because if it was just whoever wants it to be there, then you're simply back to supporting true marriage inclusion, and that means you can do anything you want no matter how wicked.
But if there is a transcendent standard-giver, namely God, who said in both His word and in the natural order He created that the standard is a distinctly particular thing, then there is indeed a grounding for why anyone should or shouldn't do something. Furthermore since we can never be perfect in meeting that standard doesn't mean we shouldn't dismiss it in the name of "individual liberty" or "sexual freedom."
It does mean we can call on His name, and know that He does answer in the person of His Son Jesus Christ.
It is easy to see why I couldn't really ask that question in that setting. Oh did I want to.
But it involves continuing the conversation. I can do a small part by posting here in my blog, writing in my webzine to begin with. I could say a lot more here in this post, but it's long.
The conversation can go forever.
I do wonder, how many of those college students, if I were to ask the question, and if they were to hear what the response from those women was, would be able to determine that their entire enterprise is truly bankrupt?
And believe me, I don't revile those women or the students in attendance. I do feel for them, however. I do feel great sorrow for them, and can only pray that they'd be able to see the truth in all of it.
And the Grace as well...
And that we could have a conversation...
___
(Technical note: For some reason the font isn't the way it is supposed to be. After cutting & pasting the quote from my webzine, I inadvertently continued to type with that font. For some reason Blogger can't cope with making the font the way it is regularly. I've messed with it, but it'll be fine. It still works, however. Thanks for your readership.)
___
(July 7 note, I cannot refuse to add this passage from a piece from Vanity Fair, something I was just browsing through tonight. It is stunning to me, and just makes the case above stronger. This is just a small part of the expose on the increase in "sex work", the selling of one's body to pay the bills.
Jenna says that a friend of hers was sexually assaulted by a man she met on a sugaring site. “She didn’t want to report it,” she says, “because she didn’t want her parents to know what she was doing.” Women in sex work reportedly experience a high incidence of rape, as well as a “workplace homicide rate” 51 times higher than that of the next most dangerous job, working in a liquor store, according to the American Journal of Epidemiology.
“If prostitution is really just physical labor,” says the Canadian feminist writer and prostitution abolitionist, Meghan Murphy, on the phone, “if it’s no different than serving coffee or fixing a car, then why would we see rape as such a traumatic thing? If there’s nothing different about sex, then what’s so bad about rape?”
And they say there is no such thing as a slippery slope. Have they no shame at all.)
Comments
Post a Comment