I was reading the comments on a post about Prager's debate with pointless celebrity Perez Hilton (whose fame is yet another sign of society's decline, but that's another post - though I have to say his unearned fame disturbs me as much as his near namesake's unearned wealth disturbs those on the left). What amused me was how much significance many of the pro-gay marriage posters attached to "haters' on the right. Pointing to posts using "homophobic" (which for some reason  they called "racist" as well*) language, they showed how "hateful" the right is.

Well, there are two problems.

First, and most significantly, the posters making most of the comments to which they object are not TH regulars. With one exception, I have never seen the names before, and I have been reading TH since before comments were allowed. None of the "haters" have blogs, and their names are unfamiliar. So, who is to say that some gay marriage advocate did not create an account and leave "hateful" language just to have something about which to complain? I am not saying that is the case, but with the anonymity the internet allows, who can say that didn't happen? Unless the poster is a regular or has a blog with some posting history, who is to say that these "hateful" comments were left by conservatives? I could easily leave messages on the DailyKos saying "I hate America", would that prove the left is anti-American? So why are anonymous comments on TH proof of conservative homophobia?

Second, even if these comments were made by regulars with lengthy histories of posts or blogs, that still would not prove it represents "conservative thought". TH does not exercise much editorial control. Except for a maddeningly restrictive language filter and removal of explicitly offensive or commercial posts, TH does little to control what is posted. So the fact that something appears on TH hardly proves it is the conservative mainstream. I have read some horribly hateful antisemitic posts on TH blogs, yet I do not take that to represent conservative thought, so why would one take anything they read in TH comments as characteristic?

That second point needs a bit of clarification.

In the past, I have read comments on DailyKos, Huff'n'Puff Post, the DUmmie site and others and used them to represent liberal thought. However, that was a slightly different situation. I did not take quotes posted in isolation and use them as straw man representatives of left thinking. I took quotes which received general support and approbation on those sites. That is a very different matter.

And were these people quoting comments which had received general support, then perhaps their arguments would be valid. But from what I saw, these comments were not generally accepted. True, they were not denounced, and a few isolated voices gave them some support, but by and large, the majority of posters simply ignored them. And from that, I am inclined to think that they do not enjoy general support.

Of course some will argue that we should be denouncing every idiotic post that might offend someone, but I think that is a big difference between the right and left. The left, filled with childish rage and a need to "change the world" feels the need to "denounce" anything with which they disagree. While the right has slowly been adopting some of the left's more childish aspects, creating a small group of "angry rightists", in general the right still ascribes to traditional norms of behavior, one of which is polite silence. We may occasionally run across a statement so outrageously offensive we have to comment, but in general, confronted with someone with whom we disagree, but whose position is irrelevant to the topic under discussion (eg. using offensive terms for homosexuals), we will allow his error to pass in silence, as there is simply no reason to start a dispute on what is, in current context, an irrelevancy.

So, should we find in the middle of a debate about gay marriage, a few comments that the left finds homophobic and offensive, but which pass without comment, the assumption I would draw is that those comments did not receive general support. The left, on the other hand, seeing no chorus of denunciation, would assume that silence implies assent. It is a belief with which I could not disagree more.

Which brings me to one final topic, what constitutes "homophobia". It seems that many on the left think that anything short of a full, hearty acceptance of homosexuality as a morally neutral lifestyle constitutes and unacceptable hatred, and that is simply absurd. Of course it does make debate quite easy for the left. When you call any position with which you disagree immoral, it becomes quite easy to win any dispute, but it also makes discussion rather pointless.

Whether the left likes it or not, there are many valid topics concerning homosexuality which should still be discussed openly. Those with various religious beliefs do still have to contend with the fact that their faith calls homosexuality immoral, and labeling those beliefs "homophobic" does nothing to make such questions easier to answer. Similarly, there are many questions about the social consequences of homosexuality, and the different societal outcomes of accepting open homosexuality. Simply saying they don't exist does not change reality, and we have plenty of history to show that acceptance of homosexuality does have an effect, both positive and negative upon cultures. Asking what that effect might be is not "homophobia" but curiosity, perhaps even scientific inquiry. Why is it allowable to ask what the impact of every other societal change might be, but not the impact of accepting open homosexuality? Likewise, there are questions which are perfectly valid, such as what effect openly gay soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in the military would have on morale and recruiting, but we are not allowed to ask, as the very act of questioning is considered proof of "homophobia" by many.

Finally, and most importantly, the activists in favor of "gay rights" need to understand that they overreach when insisting on approval. Many of us exist who are perfectly content to remove all legal restrictions upon homosexuality, but who are quite unwilling to demand that others silence their own objections. I am happy to remove legal prohibitions, but I will not insist that everyone approve of homosexuality. Everyone is entitled to his own beliefs, and to the open expression of those beliefs. If homosexuals are to be allowed to express their "essence", then why not the religious man who finds homosexuality sinful? In other words, I am fully in favor of legal neutrality with regard to homosexuality, but I oppose any efforts to force social acceptance. Society, as a group of independent individuals, needs to work that out on its own. And calling any with whom you disagree "homophobes" is not likely to sway society.

--------------------------------------------------------

* I chuckle at how absurd the use of "racist" has become. It is almost as all purpose an insult as "fascist" once was for the left. It seems any sort of "hate" is dubbed racism, whether it has anything to do with race. Dislike of homosexuals, racism. Opposition to religious beliefs, racism. Criticism of the cultural practices of a particular ethnic group, racism. Even opposition to special rights for the disabled can be dubbed racism by some. It seems any sort of criticism of a protected group is now dubbed racism, no matter whether it involves a race or not.

--------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

There is one legal area where I seem to be in agreement with the gay rights protesters, though for completely different reasons. I think marriage should be a religious, not a legal, question, with the legal aspects handled through simple contract law, not through any specific matrimonial law. (Child support would be handled through the same support law that now applies to unmarried couples, with the exception that some support matters could be contractually assigned during the writing of the marriage contracts. Obviously some aspects of child support and contract law would need to be changed to accommodate this, but not many.)

I know many disagree with my position, and it is too long to get involved in here, so I refer those interested to my posts "Solving the Gay Marriage Debate", "Updating an Old Post", and "Revisiting Gay Marriage".

For those interested, some of my earlier posts on homosexuality and our strange cultural rules concerning all topic homosexual, see the following posts: "The Power of Words", "Biology as Justification", "Updating an Old Post", "Cultural Rules", "Don't Liberals Notice the Contradictions?", "Myths of Homosexuality", "Follow Up", "Correlation and Causation Revisted" and "Just Asking For It". I fully expect that some will find my questions "homophobic", though, to be fair, I have had at least one critical reader who commented quite politely and carried on a very civil debate. So not everyone has succumbed tot he madness of dubbing dissent "homophobic" and cutting off debate. (And to be completely fair, some of the comments which inspired this post were pretty nasty,  enough that I found them distasteful. However my criticism of using homophobia as means to cut off debate is not based on those comments alone, so the fact that in this case they were actually quite vile does not matter.)