Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts

June 28, 2018

Pride parade pros and cons

Pride Parade, Mexico City 2016 (Edgard Garrido/Reuters)
APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, June 28, 2018
(Note: Below is an expanded version of what appeared in today's Carillon.)

Pride parade pros and cons

'Tis the season for gay pride parades. In a democratic, diverse multi-cultural society such as Canada it's important to look at pride parade pros and cons. Let's (dare) do that.

On the pro side: Gay pride parades attempt to show love and respect to persons who identify as LGBTQ as well as draw attention to unfair discrimination and bullying.

Another pro (“pro”): We should celebrate and affirm the (assumed/ alleged) truth and goodness of the various gender identities and expressions thereof: homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender, etc.—the list is long.

Many people stop here and expect fellow citizens (and political leaders) to support gay pride parades.

But opposing reasons should be considered, too.

First, a clarification: One can be against discrimination and bullying plus favour love, freedom, equality, respect for all, and—at the same time—not agree with the celebration of LGBTQ as an ideology (set of ideas and ideals about sexuality and its expression). Disagreement doesn't equal hate. Nor is disagreement always phobic or bigoted.

Okay, what are some cons/ counter-considerations concerning gay pride parades?

Here are six.

1. Many persons hold moral/ religious beliefs that limit the appropriate expression of sexual intimacy to one man and one woman in marriage. These persons (e.g., many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, etc.) hold such beliefs to be true. These people count, too. And they aren't all bigots or phobic.

Significantly, in a pluralist society that values diversity, such beliefs are legitimate to hold. So, in so far as pride parades celebrate behaviours or identities one thinks are wrong or mistaken, to that extent the moral/ religious belief—whether opponents agree or not—is a legitimate reason for one not to attend (or support or endorse) such parades.

2. There are reasonable concerns about the wisdom of celebrating and encouraging sexual expression outside the one-man-one-woman-united-in-marriage paradigm for sexual intimacy.

Psychiatrist-physician Miriam Grossman: Compared to the general heterosexual population, persons who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual report “more high risk sexual behaviors, higher rates of infection with HIV, syphilis, and gonorrhea, and more mental health problems [anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts].”

Significantly, Grossman adds, these disparities also occur in more accepting, gay-friendly societies (e.g., The Netherlands), so can't be blamed wholly on cultural attitudes/phobias.

See Dr. Grossman's book You're Teaching My Child What?: A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Ed and How They Harm Your Child. (This book is recommended by Nicholas Cummings, a former president of the American Psychological Association.)

For further substantiation, see the 2017 book The Health Hazards of Homosexuality: What the Medical and Psychological Research Reveals.

3. Gay pride proponents typically encourage redefining marriage from (a) the union of a man and woman who can (at least in principle) reproduce sexually via their union and nurture their biological children to (b) a union of, say, two adults regardless of sexual non-complementarity.

But, according to researcher Ryan T. Anderson, reliable studies from social sciences strongly suggest parenting by married biological parents—i.e., biological mother AND biological father—is ideal for well-being of children. The redefinition of marriage (along with divorce and single parenting) takes society another step away from this ideal.

See Ryan T. Anderson's lecture at Stanford University: What Is Marriage? (56 minute video). See too the Q&A (36 minute video). Anderson also sets out and develops three negative consequences of same-sex marriage in this 23 minute video presentation. (The subsequent 34 minute Q&A is important, too.)

See also chapter seven “The Victims" of Anderson's 2015 book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom.

Moreover, stepping away from sexual complementarity also increases demand for reproductive technology such as In Vitro Fertilization. But IVF has problems.

IVF usually creates leftover frozen human embryos, i.e., human beings; often requires “selective termination,” i.e., abortion of unwanted fetuses; exploits women as surrogates and egg suppliers; plus threatens to abolish children's biologically-based moral right to know and be raised by both biological parents.

See my column Think, for baby's sake.

4. On the transgender front, all is not well either, health-wise and science-wise. Space does not permit a full discussion here, so I recommend Ryan T. Anderson's 2018 book, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment. See too my columns Transgender ideology and Transtruth?

5. Recent history shows that LGBTQ ideologues tend to be extremely intolerant toward dissenters.

For example, a U.S. baker is facing a fine of $135,000.00 merely for not baking a same-sex wedding cake. Also, Canada's Trinity Western University's proposed law school (a Christian school) has been facing years of legal difficulties for holding traditional views on marriage, recently culminating with Canada's Supreme Court ruling against TWU. Also, two years ago a Steinbach parade spokesperson said those who disagree don't have a right to their opinion (a threat to free speech, surely).

Moreover, local LGBTQ activists are attempting to use the force of law to promote LGBTQ ideology in public schools (in the academic curriculum of young children), in spite of what dissenting parents think. Also, Canada's recent passing of Bill C16, a.k.a. Transgender Rights Bill, threatens to compel speech (see my C16 and Forcing Your Religion and my Bill C16 is incoherent—and that's a concern).

(Personal note: Because I have carefully critiqued LGBTQ matters over the past several years, some LGBTQ supporters have made public calls for me not only to be fired from my current place of employment but also to be stripped of my PhD. That's in addition to lots of name-calling. This seems to be a growing LGBTQ understanding of “tolerance” of dissenters: if you can't beat them with respectful use of reason and evidence, crush their ability to make a living.)

Cloaked in rainbow flags and chanting slogans of “diversity,” “tolerance,” and “love is love,” some gay pride paraders promote intolerance.

6. Arguments in favour of LGBTQ matters tend to be seriously flawed from the point of view of truth and logic. Space doesn't permit me to discuss those arguments here, so please see my relevant articles. For starters, see Untangling LGBTQ arguments (plus see below, especially my replies to critics).

Surely, truth-seeking responsible citizens are justified in refusing to support an ideology that is often based on (and even promotes) faulty reasoning.

Conclusion: Gay pride parades have pros and cons. Whether we celebrate such parades or not, let's all promote careful thinking and the freedom to respectfully disagree.


Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Providence University College. The views expressed in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.


Note to critics: Please read at least a few of my (relevant) suggested readings before commenting. Thanks.


Resources for people who have unwanted same-sex sexual attractions


Online resources, for starters: 


The following books are helpful too: 



Other Apologia columns on related matters, for additional reading
Homosexuality (general) 


Homosexuality (non-religious criticisms) 


Homosexuality (and Bible) 


Same-sex marriage 


Transgender 


Politics 


Phobia 


Love 


Replies to my critics 


Note (again) to critics: Please read at least a few of my (relevant) suggested readings before commenting. Thanks.

Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

July 13, 2017

Why I won't attend my city's gay pride parade

Gay pride parade 2016 (Steinbach, Manitoba)
APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
July 13, 2017

Why I won't attend my city's gay pride parade: Because the reasons against outweigh the reasons for

Concerning Steinbach's upcoming gay pride parade (July 15), let's look at some pros and cons. I think the cons (reasons against) outweigh the pros (reasons in favour).

On the pro side: Gay pride parades attempt to show love and respect to persons who identify as LGBTQ, plus challenge and draw attention to unfair discrimination and bullying. Gay pride parades are an exercise of freedom of speech.

Another pro (“pro”): We should celebrate, i.e., be proud of and affirm, the (assumed/ alleged) truth and goodness of the various gender identities and expressions thereof: homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender, etc.

Many well-meaning folks stop here and expect citizens (and government officials) to support gay pride parades.

But opposing reasons should be considered, too.

First, a clarification: One can be against discrimination and bullying plus favour love, freedom, equality, respect for all, and—at the same time—not agree with the celebration of LGBTQ as an ideology (set of ideas and ideals about sexuality and its expression). Disagreement doesn't equal hate.

Okay, what are some cons/ counter-considerations concerning gay pride parades? Here are seven.

1. Many persons (including me) hold moral/ religious beliefs that limit the appropriate expression of sexual intimacy to one man and one woman in marriage. These persons (e.g., many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, etc.) hold such beliefs to be true, i.e., not a mere matter of opinion. These people count, too.

Significantly, in a pluralist society that values diversity, such beliefs are legitimate to hold. So, in so far as a pride parade celebrates or affirms behaviour one thinks is wrong, to that extent the moral/ religious belief—whether opponents agree or not—is a legitimate reason against attending (or supporting or endorsing) such parades.

 (And the right to free speech of paraders is not infringed upon by those who disagree with the parade when they don't attend the parade.)

2. There are serious public health reasons for questioning the wisdom of celebrating and encouraging sexual expression outside the one-man-one-woman-united-in-marriage paradigm for sexual intimacy.

Psychiatrist-physician Miriam Grossman: Compared to the general heterosexual population, persons who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual report “more high risk sexual behaviors, higher rates of infection with HIV, syphilis, and gonorrhea, and more mental health problems [anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts].”

Significantly, Grossman adds, these disparities also occur in more accepting, gay-friendly societies (e.g., The Netherlands), so can't be blamed wholly on cultural attitudes.

See Dr. Grossman's book You're Teaching My Child What?: A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Ed and How They Harm Your Child. (This book is recommended by Nicholas Cummings, a former president of the American Psychological Association.)

For further substantiation, see the 2017 book The Health Hazards of Homosexuality: What the Medical and Psychological Research Reveals.

3. LGBTQ ideology typically encourages redefining marriage from (a) the union of a man and woman who can (at least in principle) reproduce sexually via their union and nurture their biological children to (b) a union of, say, two adults regardless of sexual noncomplementarity.

However, according to researcher Ryan T. Anderson, reliable studies from social sciences strongly suggest parenting by married biological parents—i.e., biological mother and biological father—is ideal for well-being of children. The redefinition of marriage (along with divorce and single parenting) takes society another step away from this ideal.

See Ryan T. Anderson's lecture at Stanford University: What Is Marriage? (56 minute video). See too the Q&A (36 minute video). Anderson also sets out and develops three negative consequences of same-sex marriage in this 23 minute video presentation. (The subsequent 34 minute Q&A is important, too.)

See also Anderson's book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom.

4. Stepping away from sexual complementarity also increases demand for reproductive technology.

In Vitro Fertilization may become normalized and its problems exacerbated. IVF creates leftover frozen human embryos, i.e., human beings; often requires “selective termination,” i.e., abortion of unwanted implantations/ fetuses; exploits women as surrogates and egg suppliers; threatens to turn children into commodities; plus threatens to abolish children's biologically-based moral right to know and be raised by both biological parents.

See my column Think, for baby's sake.

5. Transgender ideology is problematic, too. See my column Transgender ideology.

6. Recent history shows that LGBTQ ideologues tend to be extremely intolerant toward dissenters.

Last year's Steinbach parade spokesperson said those who disagree don't have a right to their opinion (a threat to free speech, surely), plus she shamed politicians who respectfully disagree with LGBTQ ideologues for not "representing" them (a threat to freedom of conscience, surely).

Moreover, local LGBTQ activists are attempting to use the force of law to promote LGBTQ ideology in public schools (in the academic curriculum of young children), in spite of what dissenting parents think. Also, Canada's recent passing of Bill C16, a.k.a. Transgender Rights Bill, threatens to compel speech (see my C16 and Forcing Your Religion and my Bill C16 is incoherent—and that's a concern).

More broadly, various businesses—bakers, florists, photographers, farmers—and private schools—e.g., Trinity Western University law school—are facing serious legal and financial difficulties because of LGBTQ activism. For example, one baker is facing a fine of $137,000.00 U.S. for not baking a same-sex wedding cake! Wow.

(Personal note: Because I have carefully critiqued LGBTQ matters over the past several years, some LGBTQ supporters have made public calls for me not only to be fired from my current place of employment but also to be stripped of my PhD. That's in addition to lots of name-calling. A growing LGBTQ understanding of "tolerance" of dissenters seems to be this: if you can't beat them with respectful use of reason and evidence, crush their ability to make a living.)

In other words, LGBTQ ideology—marching under rainbow flags and chanting ambiguous slogans about “diversity", “tolerance", and “love is love"—has a distinctly undemocratic, fascist flavor.

7. Arguments in favour of LGBTQ matters tend to be seriously flawed from the point of view of truth and logic. Space doesn't permit me to discuss those arguments here, so please see my relevant articles. For starters, see Untangling LGBTQ arguments (plus see below, especially my replies to critics).

Surely, truth-seeking responsible citizens are justified in refusing to support an ideology that is often based on (and even promotes) faulty reasoning.

My conclusion: When it comes to gay pride parades, I think the cons outweigh the pros. Thus I will not attend Steinbach's upcoming parade.

Nevertheless, I will show respect (and gentleness) to those who disagree with me, as I hope they will to me.


(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views expressed in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

 Note to critics: Please read at least a few of my (relevant) suggested readings before commenting. Thanks.


Resources for people who have unwanted same-sex sexual attractions

Online resources, for starters: 
The following books are helpful too: 

 Suggested readings: Other Apologia columns on related matters

 Homosexuality (general) 
 Homosexuality (non-religious criticisms) 
 Homosexuality (and Bible) 
 Same-sex marriage 
 Transgender 
 Politics 
 Phobia 
 Love 
 Replies to my critics 

Note to critics (again): Please read at least a few of my (relevant) suggested readings before commenting. Thanks.

Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

December 21, 2016

Cakes and conscience

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, December 22, 2016
(Slightly revised July 1, 2017)

Cakes and conscience

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Or so the saying goes.

In view of Christian bakers in the U.S. and Ireland being sued enormous sums of money (e.g., $137,000 U.S.) for not making gay wedding cakes, some persons clearly not only want to have their cake and eat it—but also wish to force others to bake it for them!

Let's look at three popular arguments in favour of using the law to coerce Christian bakers to bake wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, and let's assess those arguments.

Keep in mind the bakers are conscientiously objecting to using their artistic talent to affirm or celebrate what they believe is immoral. They wish to exercise freedom of speech—freedom not to be compelled to say/ express something they think is false or wrong.

Argument 1: The Christian bakers are discriminating against gays.

Assessment: Nope.

Yes, the bakers choose to refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings, but, no, the bakers are not discriminating against gays in general.

The bakers serve gays in day-to-day business by serving cookies, pastries, cupcakes, birthday cakes, etc. But the bakers refuse to participate only in what seems to them as contributing to the celebration of a particular event—a same-sex marriage ceremony—which goes against their moral conscience. The bakers are refusing to use their creative talent to make a message with which they disagree.

This means gays are here not being discriminated against as a class as, say, blacks have been discriminated against as a class. It's not as if gays are not being served at all at a lunch counter.

Again: Only a particular type of event—a same-sex wedding—is not being serviced and celebrated by some (a few) bakers. (Significantly, there's no shortage of other bakers who are ready and willing to bake the desired cakes.)

In other words, the oft-assumed racial discrimination analogy is faulty.

Surely, in a tolerant and pluralist society bakers should be free to refuse some business on moral grounds.

Think about it. Don’t we think a Muslim baker should be free not to bake cakes celebrating pornographic images for a stag party? Or a Jewish baker should be free not to bake a cake celebrating the pork industry? Or a black baker should be free to not to bake a cake celebrating the Ku Klux Klan? Or a gay baker should be free not to bake a cake for an anti-gay celebration at Westboro Baptist Church (of “God hates fags” notoriety)?

Answer: We do think they should be free not to bake such cakes.

Argument 2: When somebody opens a business that serves the public, they should serve all of the public.

Assessment: Yes and no.

Yes, ideally, it would be nice if all the public were to be served. But, no, life isn't always sugar and spice and everything nice.

Surely, we should allow some limitations to make room for religious/ moral conscience if doing so isn't a huge burden on the public. After all, we live in a diverse society.

Think about it (again). In a diverse society it's important that we don't force a Muslim baker to go against her conscience, nor force a Jewish baker to go against his conscience, nor force a black baker to go against her conscience, nor force a gay baker to go against his conscience, nor force a Christian baker to go against her conscience, etc. It's called tolerance.

Argument 3: If you're not going to bake gay wedding cakes, then you shouldn't become a baker in the first place.

Assessment: This argument tells us that if anyone doesn't agree with gay ideology, then any conscientious objections will not be tolerated. In other words, pro-gay ideology is trump.

But whatever happened to freedom of conscience? Whatever happened to tolerance and live-and-let-live? Whatever happened to pluralism and diversity?

Folks, life in a diverse pluralist society won't always be easy. Let's not force people to violate their moral conscience when there are many other, less oppressive ways to get a cake.

 (Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views expressed in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Additional reading:

Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

July 06, 2016

Pride parade pros and cons

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, July 7, 2016

Pride parade pros and cons

Let's look at some pros (reasons in favour) and cons (reasons against) concerning Steinbach's upcoming gay pride parade.

 [Note to readers outside of Canada: Steinbach, Manitoba, is the small rural community in which I live. Steinbach is having its first Gay Pride Parade on July 9th and is garnering national media attention because—gasp—not everyone favours the parade.]

First, though (as a relevant aside), I must comment on some recent reporting by CBC News. CBC News visited Steinbach apparently to cover our community's views concerning the parade.

Four people were interviewed. Three pro. One con. But notice this: the one disagreeing voice was an elderly woman who suffers from dementia. After complaints about exploiting the vulnerable, CBC revised its story to drop the contesting voice. This left three pro voices.

Contrary to CBC's biased report, pros and cons should be considered, not just pros.

On the pro side: Gay pride parades attempt to show love and respect to persons who identify as LGBTQ, plus challenge unfair discrimination and bullying.

Another pro/ “pro” is the celebration of—being proud of and affirming—the (assumed/ alleged) truth and goodness of the various gender identities and expressions thereof: homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender, etc. This is to favour LGBTQ as an ideology (a set of ideas and ideals, a belief system).

Many stop here and expect citizens and government officials to support gay pride.

But there are counter-considerations, too.

First, a clarification: One can favour non-discrimination (where discrimination is understood in the unjust sense), non-bullying, love, freedom, equality, respect for all, and—at the same time—not agree with the celebration of LGBTQ as an ideology. Disagreement doesn't equal hate.

Okay, what are some cons/ counter-considerations concerning gay pride parades?

Con 1. Many persons hold moral beliefs that limit the appropriate expression of sexual intimacy to one man and one woman in marriage. These persons hold such beliefs not only as true but also near/ within the core of their personal or religious identity.

In a pluralist society that values diversity such beliefs are legitimate to hold. So, in so far as a pride parade celebrates or affirms behaviour one thinks immoral, to that extent the moral/ religious belief (whether opponents agree or not) is a legitimate reason against such parades—or at least for not attending or supporting or endorsing.

(Note: Such opinions might make some LGBTQ persons “feel oppressed,” as pride parade organizer Michelle McHale suggests in the above-mentioned CBC report. But, equally, so might others “feel oppressed” by the increasingly aggressive, government-backed LGBTQ ideology that contradicts their moral/ religious identity.)

Con 2. There are non-religious, public health reasons for questioning the wisdom of celebrating and encouraging sexual expression outside the one-man-one-woman-united-in-marriage paradigm for sexual intimacy.

Physician Miriam Grossman: Compared to the general heterosexual population, persons who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual report “more high risk sexual behaviors, higher rates of infection with HIV, syphilis, and gonorrhea, and more mental health problems [anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts].”

Significantly, Grossman adds, these disparities also occur in more accepting, gay-friendly societies (e.g., The Netherlands), so can't be blamed wholly on cultural attitudes.

Con 3. LGBTQ ideology typically encourages redefining marriage from (a) the union of a man and woman who can (at least in principle) reproduce sexually via their union and nurture their biological children to (b) a union of, say, two adults regardless of sexual noncomplementarity.

However, according to researcher RyanT. Anderson, reliable studies from social sciences strongly suggest parenting by married biological parents—i.e., biological mother and biological father—is ideal for well-being of children. The redefinition of marriage (along with divorce and single parenting) takes society another step away from this ideal.

Con 4. Stepping away from sexual complementarity also increases demand for reproductive technology.

In Vitro Fertilization may become normalized and its problems exacerbated. (IVF creates leftover frozen human embryos, i.e., human beings; often requires “selective termination,” i.e., abortion of unwanted implantations/ fetuses; exploits women as surrogates and egg suppliers; threatens to turn children into commodities, abolishing their biologically-based moral right to know and be raised by both biological parents. For further reading on IVF, look here.) 

CBC notwithstanding, then, Steinbach's gay pride parade has pros and cons.

I encourage further thinking and truth-seeking, plus gentleness and respect for all.

---

Note to critics: Before commenting, please read my (relevant) previous work, the criticisms from my previous critics, plus my replies to my critics.  Look here, for starters: Is promoting same-sex sex wise? 

On the Orlando massacre, look here: Politically incorrect thoughts: Orlando massacre, HSD and LGBTQ  
(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views expressed in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)


Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)