Sunday, June 03, 2012

Discrimination Proclamation

Sometimes I run across a piece of writing so hateful, ignorant, vicious and evil that it warrants a nearly sentence-by-sentence dismantling. This is one of those times.

It is time for conservatives to reclaim and rehabilitate the word “discriminate,” particularly when it comes to homosexual behavior.

Yes, with all else that is going on in the country and world right now, this is the battle conservatives need to fight — to reclaim the word “discriminate.” What, was “segregate” busy? Was “prejudice” sufficiently claimed?

The left has twisted this word to create the utterly false impression that discrimination of any kind at any time for any reason is by definition wrong and immoral.  

Uh, no. We lefties can be quite discriminating. For example, if we were to host a dinner party and we wanted to talk about something other than hate, we’d leave Bryan Fischer off the guest list.

Of course, leftists are oblivious to the reality that they, these self-described paragons of tolerance, routinely discriminate against people of Christian faith, by refusing them permission to pray in public, by fining them for declining to photograph lesbian commitment ceremonies, by throwing them out of graduate programs in counseling, or by suing them in court if they won’t rent their facilities to same-sex couples.

If any of this happens (and I doubt it’s that common), it’s because the Christians are violating laws, not because they’re Christians. I can’t think of anyone trying to repress that group just because of who they are. But some Christian groups do that.

So their blindingly hypocritical mantra quite simply is “discrimination for me but not for thee.” 

Always being persecuted, those poor bigots! When will the Martin Luther King of gay-bashers rise up and demand equality for those who wish to deny it to others? One day, far into the future, bigots will be able to vote, sit at lunch counters and marry just like the rest of us! What a glorious day for civil rights that will be.

The truth is that public policy is about nothing other than discrimination. This is all it is about, all it can be about, and all it should be about. 

“Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” — George Wallace (who changed his mind later in life)

According to Webster’s, the verb “discriminate” is from a Latin word meaning to “distinguish between.” It means to “differentiate,” to “distinguish by discerning or exposing differences,” “to make a distinction” or “to use good judgment.” 

This is what public policy is all about: using good judgment to distinguish those behaviors that are worthy of public approval from those behaviors which ought to receive public disapproval. 

I get it! So we should discriminate against gays the way we discriminate against, say, terrible-tasting food — if you wouldn’t put it in your mouth, it doesn’t belong at the table. Shucks. And here I was thinking you meant “discriminate” in a mean way.

Public policy is about discriminating against behaviors that are socially destructive and corrosive to the social fabric. So, we rightly discriminate against people who rip off convenience stores, burgle houses, drive while drunk, eat the faces off homeless people, gun down servicemen on military bases, embezzle funds from employers or clients, or beat their wives. 

This discrimination is based, you will note, on behavior. Public policy is not a concern until an individual acts. As Thomas Jefferson said, “[T]he legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions.”

Yes, we rightly discriminate against people who BREAK THE LAW. Real laws written and passed by legislatures, not the archaic and contradictory laws of whatever narrow-minded god bigoted assholes follow.

And that “behavior” you mention is just that, behavior — people deliberately performing criminal actions. Being gay is not a crime, nor is it behavior — it’s a characteristic. It’s not a choice. But even if you think it is a choice, how does that make someone a bad person on par with lawbreakers?

We should not therefore discriminate against a man for his sexual inclinations, only for his sexual conduct.

No, we’re not supposed to discriminate against sexual conduct either, unless it breaks a law. Don’t tell me — you don’t like big government unless it’s about the bedroom?

We don’t punish people for what they think about doing, or even for what they want to do, but only for their actions, only for the times when they yield to socially destructive impulses.  

In other words, gays can be gay as long as they don’t do anything gay. Then they should be thrown in jail. On charges of ickiness, I presume.

In other words, regardless of one’s sexual “orientation,” which might even be to have sex with children, sexual behavior is always a matter of choice.

Sex with children is an offense entirely unrelated to sexual inclination. Child molesters are sick people, but their sickness lies in deciding to rape kids, not in which gender of child they prefer.

You can ask Tiger Woods about what happens to an individual who yields to every sexual impulse that comes along. 

Oh, you mean the HETEROSEXUAL Tiger Woods? I suppose his transgressions have to do with the predatory nature of his sexuality, huh? Man, those straights sure are some immoral sex fiends! Maybe we should disapprove of them too! Wait, where did these crickets suddenly come from?

If a man’s actions are contrary to good public policy, it is altogether right that society should discriminate against such behaviors by, at a minimum, expressing public disapproval of such conduct. 

Hey, man, you can express your public disapproval all you want. Fortunately, we don’t codify our laws by what some uptight, self-appointed moral guardians consider uncouth. By the way, are you still bashing Tiger Woods? I want to get back to bashing gays!

This entirely appropriate discrimination can take a number of different forms, ranging all the way from a simple refusal to provide societal endorsement for such behavior, to refusing to subsidize it, to refusing to give it special protections in law, to assessing fines for it, to incarceration, and ultimately, in cases of things like murder, even execution. 

Yes, it’s a quick jump from some right-wing nut jobs tsk-tsking something to freaking execution. This is exactly why homosexuals deserve protection and equality under the law — to keep the grease off your slippery slopes.

More to the point, we discriminate, both in public and private, against sexually immoral behavior all the time. 

And by “we,” I assume you mean people like you who spend every spare moment tellingly harping on butt sex. Because I sure don’t. I’m far too busy trying to get mayonnaise banned because I like mustard.

We discriminate against people who engage in prostitution. (You can ask the Secret Service about that.) Private companies discriminate against those whose sexual conduct make them poor representatives of company values. (You can ask Tiger Woods all about that, too.) Private companies discriminate against executives who sexually harass employees. (You can ask Mark Hurd, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, all about that.) 

We discriminate against adults, even priests, who have sex with children. We discriminate against teachers who have affairs with students. We discriminate against teachers who moonlight in the porn industry. We discriminate against students who engage in sexting. We discriminate against rapists. We discriminate against those who expose sexual partners unknowingly to the AIDS virus. We discriminate against those adults who commit statutory rape against minors. We discriminate against homosexuals and prostitutes by refusing to allow them to give blood. 

Again, nearly all of these examples involve infractions of the law — by mostly heterosexuals at that. Indeed, there’s so much damning evidence against straights in this piece that I’m thinking of choosing to be gay. (Though I guess that means I couldn’t donate blood anymore, since this is the 1980s and all gays and no straights have HIV.)

The point is this: we discriminate against sexually immoral and inappropriate behavior all the time, and homosexual behavior is sexually immoral and inappropriate. 

No, we discriminate against illegal behavior. What you feel about gay sex isn’t some universal truth, and it certainly isn’t law in the United States. We’re a nation of secular laws, thank God.

As the president of the American Family Association, Tim Wildmon, has often said, homosexual behavior is “immoral, unnatural and unhealthy.”

Well, good for him. I say the same thing about bigotry, but that’s still legal.

It is contrary to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” as the Founders would have put it.

I’m sure they would, which is why they didn’t.

It puts the human body to sexual uses which are utterly contrary to the way in which the human body is designed.

Oh, do go on. I’m sure you’ve researched this in great detail.

And it is accompanied by a raft of pathologies, including HIV/AIDS and a host of other debilitating sexually transmitted diseases. It shortens the lifespan of those who engage in it by as much as 30 years.

That’s such an outmoded statement that my MacBook Pro morphed into an Apple II as I read it. Half the license plates on my wall are now valid. Ronald Reagan is president, and once again is doing nothing to advance awareness of HIV/AIDS.

In other words, this is behavior that no rational society should ever condone, endorse, subsidize, or enshrine. We’ve waged all-out war against cigarette smoking because it cuts six to seven years off the lives of smokers. We should care no less about those who are destroying themselves through non-normative sexual behavior. 

Maybe we should focus on the diseases that kill people as dead as smoking. There’s such a thing as safe gay sex, just as there’s unsafe straight sex. After all, a virus affects anyone who gets it; do you think HIV discriminates over sexual orientation? Nope. That’s you!

We should discriminate against this kind of behavior not because we hate people but because we love them. We do not want to see them destroyed by their sexual choices, and we don’t want to see others destroyed through the diseases that are transmitted to them in unnatural sexual acts. 

Yeah, it’s all about loving the sinner and hating the sin. Except only you think it’s a sin. And your idea of “loving” is to force people to be miserable by living a lie. Just so you feel more righteous about yourself. Sickness isn’t only the result of a virus.

Does DOMA discriminate against immoral sexual behavior? Yes, and it should. Do state marriage amendments that protect man-woman marriage discriminate against unnatural sexual behavior? Yes, and they should. 

Yes, let’s just make it mandatory for all sex to be within the bounds of marriage, heterosexual, missionary and result in a child. You know, “natural,” just like the Bible prescribes (with its singular, contemporary American definition of marriage).

We should reform our public policy on this issue by once again refusing to use the power of government to endorse homosexual behavior, to subsidize it, or to give it special protections in law. This means, for starters, re-instating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and stopping ENDA in its tracks. And let’s be clear: nobody is talking about locking anybody up here. 

No, we’re simply talking about continuing to deny basic civil rights and protections to people because of their sexual orientation. And to roll back the ones they’ve earned in recent years. But that’s OK, because no one will be going to jail. Certainly not for hate crimes.

Bottom line: it’s time for conservatives to unhesitatingly reclaim the “D” word, dust it off, and use it without apology. A rational culture that cares about its people will in fact discriminate against adultery, pedophilia, rape, bestiality, and, yes, homosexual behavior.

Maybe you should be more of the “D” word over your list of infractions. Homosexuals do not belong among a list of sexual perversions and illegal acts (a list so morbid that even adultery seems out of place on it). A rational culture will care about all people; what you seem to want is an irrational culture that relegates those you don’t like to second-class status. And for what? Bryan, you have not only failed to illustrate the supposedly unique dangers of homosexuality, but you have added a whole extra layer of bigotry to what is already one of the most baffling wedge issues of our time. I like to think this is the last, desperate gasp of a hate group that knows it’s on the wrong side of history. Fifty years ago, people like you were saying the same things about blacks and, before that, women. But somehow, society didn’t collapse by expanding basic human rights to human beings. If anything, it only makes the nation stronger. And as long as narrow-minded, hateful and hypocritical fanatics like yourself continue to infect American discourse with your ignorant and outdated sentiments, we’ll need that strength.

Look up that word, strength. It’s a trait that gays and other embattled groups have employed for decades to deal with the obstacles and tragedies that insecure people such as yourself set up to feel special. Strength is great. Please try it sometime.

Your partner in heterosexuality(?), 
Ian McGibboney

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.) 

Good call, AFA. I wouldn’t claim that tripe either.

No comments: