The Definition of Silence

I was just driving back from getting a nice Panera lunch in Rockford, IL and I found NPR on the radio. In general, NPR is pretty reliably liberal but evidently when you get out into farm country, all bets are off. I was listening to a segment of Point of View in which a fairly non-radical christian was discussing the idea of gay marriage and the usage of "sexual orientation" in protective laws.

When I first tuned in, they had a weak but almost understandable point that the term "sexual orientation" might be too vague. One of the guy's points was that "there are a lot of really horrible things that people do sexually, and do you want to protect everyone who perpetrates such acts?" which ended up being a rather vague point. Then he went on to discuss how the Boy Scouts are facing the brunt of this law--they are being forced to allow homosexual members or are being forced out of parks since they have a religious mandate that is inherently prejudiced against gays (although to be fair, I have not checked that fact...is that actually true?). Then he went on to say that the media involvement and various laws allowing gay marriage were in fact "silencing those christians who believe in Biblical and traditional values."

He also brought up the recent stupid answer by Miss California USA in the Miss USA pageant (stupid mainly because she never actually answered the question) and even stupider response by Perez Hilton (stupid mainly because the guy is incendiary and not particularly rational in his arguments) as a way to show how any "good girl with values" is turned into a national pariah because of her religious values (I don't think she even mentioned religion in her answer which, included the phrase "Americans can choose between a traditional marriage and an opposite marriage"--both completely false and wtf?! worthy).

Hold the phone... remember this is NPR. NPR!! Oh Illinois... you make me sad today.

Here's why I was bothered by this argument:

#1: Who are you to say what kind of sexual relations are "horrible?" I agree that there are a lot of people out there who take part in various "kink" activities, but who am I to judge when it has no effect on me? Does our constitution and bill of rights not protect our individual rights in our own homes? I'm going to assume that you think that homosexuality is a disgusting, horrible sexual kink, but where do you draw the legal line? Is oral sex a horrible kink that should be considered in job application and other legal circumstances? (Sodomy is outlawed in many states in laws that I think even most "biblical christians" would agree are far past due for repeal.)

#2: To go one step further than your argument against protections for "sexual orientation"... If homosexuality is a part of you from birth, then would you ask for "race" to be repealed from the same laws? If (and in my mind it's just an if to appease those who insist) homosexuality isn't a facet of your innate personality and is in fact a choice, would you also request that "religion/creed" be struck from these laws? Maybe the language is too broad, but then again "race" covers everything from african, asian, jew, norweign, and german and "religion/creed" covers satanists and cultists.

#3: To speak to the Boy Scout point, I'm not so sure that I agree with all of the prosecution against the Boy Scouts, but there are precedents that are allowing these cases to go through. The Boy Scouts are a private organization and have nothing to do with government, but as a private institution they cannot discriminate just the same as any other. Do we allow them to prevent a black boy or a hindu boy from joining or a hispanic man or jewish man from being a troop leader? Then why can we allow them to prevent a homosexual boy from joining, or a homosexual man from leading the group? I like to think that our views of race have changed over time to find the prospect of banning a black troop leader due to his race absurd. Perhaps my argument fails in the backwoods of the country.

#4: My main confusion really boils down to one major question: how does protecting one group of people and affording them the same rights you have silence you? Simply because you allow homosexual couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples by law and in terminology, how does that "silence" anyone? The act of allowing one group additional rights does nothing to remove your rights. You can still speak out about whatever you want, but you cannot act against a group because of one quality of that group. I pose this question: Would you not hire a Jew? Would you not serve a black person at your restaurant? Would you want the government to not allow inter-racial marriages (oop, depending on where we are, that might be a bad question to pose...)? Have you ever considered that it is your own insecurity with your sexuality and fears about other definitions of sexuality that prejudices you against those of other sexualities much as your own insecurity about your own personal power and fears about other cultures can lead you to be racist?

So yes, there are some things that need to be legislated simply because there are people who are so far off the grid, they refuse to open their minds to other human beings. Laws against racism and religious prejudice are there because there are many, many people out there who would otherwise discriminate. This is simply a law that protects a group of people who are different, whether by their natural condition (race) or their choice of lifestyle (religion), and we are adding another group that fits this law perfectly. If we are going to allow the biblical christians to have their say, we must also allow the homosexual community to have the same rights, not silencing one compells us to not silence the other, and un-silencing one has no bearing on the vocal quality of the other.