Cartoon from here.
The news media is always finding some excuse to bring the issue of homosexual rights into the news. The latest is President-elect Barack Obama’s choice of Pastor Rick Warren to pray at his inauguration.
Gay-rights advocates were enraged that Obama had given the evangelical clergyman a prominent role at the Jan. 20 inauguration. Obama said he wanted the event to reflect diverse views and insisted he remains a “fierce advocate” of equal rights for gays.
Warren had backed Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in his home state of California, where he founded Saddleback. He had recently said that he opposed any redefinition of marriage, including a brother marrying a sister, or an adult marrying a child. (from here)
Some homosexual rights advocates do find the selection of Warren discomfiting.
I suspect what Warren really fears is that the public will recognize him for what he is: an old-time religionist with old-time beliefs about issues on which American attitudes have, so to speak, evolved. In recent days Warren has said: “I have many gay friends. I’ve eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church,” referring to his mega-church and the many efforts it has made to aid HIV suffers in Africa.
How is that different from saying, “I have a few black friends, but I still believe in segregation”? (from here)
Given that it would be difficult to prove homosexuals are suffering any economic discrimination whatsoever, comparing Warren’s disapproval of homosexuality with racism seems ridiculous. Yet that is what many do. I suspect the problem is that some people do not understand that each of us actually is entitled to our own opinion. That being so, perhaps we should consider the difference between tolerance and forbearance.
Tolerance involves putting up with something difficult. Such a thing can be cold or hot weather, the pain of a wound, wet diapers, or any number of discomforts. We tolerate the discomfort because it is less trouble than the effort involved in removing the discomfort. Often we do not even have any way to remove the discomfort.
On the other hand, forbearance implies a moral judgment. Forbearance involves a specific type of toleration. When we exercise forbearance, we tolerate morally disagreeable behavior. Forbearance does not give approval to the disagreeable behavior; forbearance merely means we disapprove the behavior and accept the fact it will occur even if we have every right to stop it. We forbear out of kindness.
Because racial discrimination is based upon one’s appearance due to race, and not behavior, our government decided to force everyone to stop discriminating based upon race. That is, our government forced Whites to tolerate Blacks.
Frankly, I think the use of government force to end race discrimination vastly overdone. If a private employer only wants to hire full-blooded Apache Indians in war paint, his hiring practices should only become an issue when and if his employees start scalping people.
The root cause of the “success” of race discrimination was the abuse of government power. The idea that we needed to bus children to integrate schools was poppycock. Without the explicit sanction and intervention of government, race discrimination cannot long exist. Without government support, there is no economic benefit for anyone.
Nonetheless, government enforced racial tolerance has for the most part worked. Because there is no demonstrable behavioral difference between Blacks and Whites, racial tolerance makes sense even if our mechanism for enforcing it does not. No one can logically argue there is a moral reason not to accept a person of another race.
On the other hand, homosexuality is behaviorally defined, and many people believe that same-sex sexual relationships are immoral. Those people who disapprove of homosexuality may forbear the behavior of homosexuals, but they do not approve or condone same-sex behavior. Nor does anyone have the right to demand that they do so. Thus we can expect it will be much more difficult to force everyone to tolerate homosexuals as we do people of other races.
In a free country, liberty means something. Liberty means we get to make our own choices. When people make their own choices, they sometimes make good choices and they sometimes bad choices. In a free country, individuals receive the rewards and the consequences of their own decisions. When that happens, individuals tend not to make the same bad decisions over and over again. Otherwise, it becomes apparent their sanity is questionable. Of course, since the sanity of most human beings is questionable, some people do repeatedly make the same bad decisions.
That being the case, there will always be homosexuals, and there will always be those who reject same-sex relationships as immoral. When those who reject same-sex relationships are willing to forbear, homosexuals might be wise to reciprocate. While same-sex relationships may be fashionable for the time being, that will almost certainly change, and when that happens, homosexuals will benefit least of all if the government has excessive power and control.
Cartoon from here.
