Posted on: Wednesday, April 23rd, 2003 by Renaissance Men
Dipo Ola is a Canadian Citizen, born in Nigeria and is currently practicing law and serving as the Nigerian and Canadian Affiliate for Renaissance Connection.' April 23, 2003' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' The dreaded crush is upon us all, once again. The crush upon free speech, the refusal to allow people to speak freely, as mandated by the First Amendment of the American constitution. And as usual, the depiction of anything remotely critical of alternative lifestyles has been universally classified, as ˜intolerant.'Today, the unfortunate victim of the politically correct brigades, is Republican Senator Rick Santorum, who is being tongue-lashed by' Gay/Lesbian rights groups and a large number of Democratic party politicians, for saying during a recent interview, that' "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Senator Santorum's words are being described as ˜intolerant', ˜bigoted', and ˜unworthy of an official in a leadership position'. And as usual, the inevitable depiction' (such as by Democratic Presidential Candidate, Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont) of anything critical of homosexuality, as akin to discriminating against a minority group (such as black people for example) is rife. The sad truth, though, of these criticisms is that they lash out in the visceral, politically correct fashion, without analyzing the content of the words in a critical, intellectual fashion. Senator Santorum never advocated discrimination against gays, and never advocated violence or opprobrium of any sort against gays. What he was pointing out was the logical frailty of the argument usually made, that anything people do in their homes should be protected under the law. Whether homosexuality is right or wrong is an issue that every individual has to address internally, with respect to values inculcated by faith/internal instincts AND externally, with respect to recognized laws. Those recognized laws are created with respect to public values, as reflected by Congress, and until the public (through Congress) has indicated that it is comfortable with Homosexual activities as a morally acceptable choice of sexual activity, then Homosexual acts in the privacy of the bedroom should not be taken as any more acceptable than other controversial activities like bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery also done in the privacy and secrecy of homes. There are people who think that none of the 4 aforementioned activities should be illegal, but those same people might find it difficult to make a distinction between those activities and homosexuality. Some people feel that the government should be kept out of peoples'bedrooms entirely. Whether it should, or not, is a separate issue from that of making false distinctions between homosexuality and the other activities. Why should incest or polygamy (as practiced by certain fundamentalist sects) for example, be judged any more unacceptable than homosexuality? The same arguments can be made equally cogently for both of them, namely, the participants are often adults acting consensually, and at the same time, the act(s) is/are considered unnatural and unacceptable by a solid majority of the American public. It is in fact arguable that more people think that an act of adultery or polygamy, however immoral, is less unnatural than an act of homosexuality.Senator Santorum is perfectly entitled to express his views as to the legitimacy, or illegitimacy of placing homosexuality on a pedestal, above other equally controversial practices, and there is nothing ˜bigoted'about that. The ˜bigoted'argument is simply an attempt to stifle any sort of criticism or even debate on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of homosexuality, because the average American, if prodded, will delve into his faith-inspired values, and probably defer to the Bible which clearly and resoundingly describes homosexuality as wrong, without placing it on any pedestal above Bigamy, adultery, incest or polygamy. It is the same sort of politically correct attacks that came down on Ex Green Bay Packer Reggie White, for daring to say that Homosexuality was something that was chosen or practiced, RATHER than something that was inherent and automatic to a person, like the person's color or height, for example. The disturbing trend of equating homosexual practices, with being black is merely another attempt to ram this lifestyle down peoples'throats, on the pain of being declared ˜bigoted'if you dare to reject it. I am unconvinced that Homosexuality is not an activity that is chosen (as opposed to being born with it), but even if it were an activity or predisposition that was imposed on a person at birth, that would not entitle it to universal acceptance. Some people are born evil, and have committed evil from the day they were born. That does not oblige the public to accept and embrace that evil. Every one has basic instincts, but being human presupposes that you reject those instincts when appropriate to do so. I for one do not, and have never advocated hatred, discrimination or violence against any homosexual, but I do not consider homosexuality as something that I must accept as ˜ok', or something that should be elevated to special status. If the Supreme Court wishes to abolish all laws relating to morality, then it should say so bluntly, and let the American public know this. In the absence of any such intention, there is no empirical, moral or logical reason to legally elevate it above the other aforementioned practices. That was Senator Santorum's point.
Articles by Renaissance Men
Previous Page :: Main Page