I went with Big R & Isa last night to a Town Hall debate between Ron Sims and the Reverend Ken Hutcherson over Gay Rights. The Rev. Hutcherson is the pastor at a large church in Redmond and is opposed to the comparison of gay rights to the civil rights movement of the African Americans. The basis for his argument is of course the Bible and the fallacy that gays choose to be gay and that he did not choose to be black. It was somewhat interesting watching them debate, though, because Ron Sims is also an ordained minister so the challenge there is how does Ron Sims reconcile his Baptist beliefs with his political wranglings. The question was asked, and not answered which was one thing that bugged me about Mr. Sims, he didn't answer several of the questions. At least he didn't answer them in the context that the question was being asked.
Rev. Hutcherson also brought up a couple of points that I honestly have a difficult time reconciling in my own mind. One is that if you are a person whose belief happens to go against the current tide, you're a hate monger or an ist or whatever and your beliefs aren't worth someone elses because they're 'wrong'. Those who were opposed to war in the early months after September 11th can certainly understand what that feels like since during that time Patriotism was running high. If you were against war, you were against America. It is funny how quickly we forget this fact. So what I have to believe is that it is his right to believe this way and not necessarily my duty to 'correct' his thoughts, this guy's mind is not changing. It is my duty, though, to fight for what I believe to be right and hope I can convince a few on the fence people along the way.
Another point Rev. Hutcherson brought up was that democracy is I believe something, I get enough people to support my beliefs, I'm going to force my beliefs onto you, whether you believe them or not. The audience booed him for this statement, but I don't know that he is entirely wrong. If you look at the smoking ban in the state. There were a lot of people with a belief (based on medical science, I supported the bill) and we managed to get enough support and we pushed our belief onto another group. Now, are smokers an oppressed minority, not really. They're definitely not a protected class. :) But his argument was that democracy is flawed in this respect. Mr. Sims countered, of course, that's the whole point of civil rights. You can't trust the rights of a minority to the majority. Which I also agree with.
Some other random notes of the evening:
In a debate setting it is counterproductive for the opposing group to shout at the person speaking. It just makes that side look bad. And this guy behind me embodied that so much because he shouted the whole time and was quite rude.
I never like the way the gays hiss when something gets said that they don't like. It just annoys me.
3 comments:
I believe that democracy is about consideration, compromise and representation of the citizens at large. Sometimes that means that some people are not completely happy but with our system and the cycles it flows in, it seems to always come around again. If the gay population and others that believe in their rights (like me) are a big enough voice, they should be heard, just like anyone else should be heard.
The problem with the smoking thing is that smoking is harmful for not only the user but the innocent bystander (this is medically proven). By banning smoking in public places, you are not "oppressing" smokers or their beliefs, because it isn't a right or a belief, it is a habit. Drunk drivers are not being oppressed either.
I believe the reverand was completely wrong (regarding whether gays can choose), but even if he was right and it was a choice, the fact that it doesn't coincide with the bible should have NOTHING to do with our laws...that is why we have separation of church and state...
You can substitute smoking ban with any number of 'morality' laws on the book and it is the same. The parents tried to get a law passed last year or the year before to ban gambling of some sort (I think the machines) in certain areas. I didn't fully pay attention to it. But it is the same kind of situation. That one failed, but ultimately it was one group trying to force their opinions on another.
thanks for your comments on this. it's hard finding a balanced perspective on the debate. it seems everyone just wants to pronounce victory for their side irregardless of what was actually said.
Post a Comment