Hate Crimes, Gay-Phobia, Freedom-Phobia, Thought-Phobia and the Ethics of Freedom

Reading through many articles, blogs, newspapers, etc. regarding same-sex marriage and baking gay-friendly cakes, one common thread was to be found here: human hate. People just are awful! No, I’m not talking about the right-wing fundamentalists. Neither am I talking about the gay-friendly people. I am talking about all of them. Their stench has risen all the way to my lofty, up-in-the-clouds philosophy. I, the idealist, am now suffocating. So I must write. God damn it! I will write in spite of the following groups: the right-wing fundies, the left-wing gays, the left-right gay-fundies (you read that correctly, some are ambivalent about politics and gay rights).

To hell with what they all think; here are my thoughts (all comments will be deleted in line with recent gag-orders coming from the courts of Oregon—please refrain from commenting [I really don’t care what the gay-haters, gay-supporters, gay-neutralists think of my writing, they all can kiss my existentialist ass]). I’m baking my cake and it’s smelling damn good!

Stay out of my kitchen.

First of all, people are disgusting. Try reading the articles. You will find two extremes—for that is all a brain-dead, TV-leech, column-reading, Oprah-addicted, human being living today is (mostly) capable of doing. So, on the one hand, we have the extreme view that all gays are, well, damned. If you’re gay, you’re going to have warm weather in the afterlife. Everything gay is of limits. An ancient text—usually the Bible—is used to support this sort of approach. People laugh at gays waving their flags, being shot down with water canons. People make fun of those who love the same-sex. They laugh at those who don’t want to love the same-sex, who struggle (for whatever reason), trying to stop loving the same-sex. They laugh at those who lead regular, mundane, gay lives. Some even go out and publicly display their hatred, dislike, or whatever, of the gay community. They refuse to bake them cakes. They steal their cookies—yes, they are the Cookie Monster.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have—what I call—the “gay supremacist.” These people, generally speaking, are proud to be gay. They want you to know they’re gay. They tell their cat they’re gay. They sue little old grandmas who refuse to bake them cakes. (Today they sue, tomorrow they terrorize—French-revolution-style, anyone?) They paint sidewalks in rainbows. They walk on gay sidewalks. (Segregation, anyone? Maybe straight people should walk on straight sidewalks only? But what if a straight sidewalk decided to mate with a rainbow-colored one?) Anyone who happens to be straight is—inherently—“anti-gay.” You can’t possibly live in a world where four percent of the population is gay and remain straight, can you?

Second, this whole thing about baking cakes, suing people over cake, is ridiculous. Fuck. Oops, I said something. In a thousand years, your f***ing ridiculous wars over “cake” are going to be remembered; my f-word will not be. Rest assured, your stupidity far surpasses my audacity to abuse language. Seriously. Grow up. Our ancestors died fighting for…anything but cake. If a person doesn’t want to make cake, while self-employed, working in a private business—privately-owned—they should do what ever the hell they want! If they want to worship Jesus, they can. If they want to pray to Allah, they can. If they want to refuse to serve gays, they can. If they don’t want to serve me, they can. If they don’t like your face, they can. If they want to bake “gay cake,” they can. If they want to leave a comment on my blog, they can’t. Because in Oregon, they can’t. (Who the heck wants to live in Oregon? That place of non-stop rain, filth, and that wretched city Portland.)

Third, this whole thing has gotten really nasty. I mean, it’s bad. (You thought I was bad, eh?) I’ve read the conservative articles. People can be nasty. They say all kinds of very mean things. They say things that would offend the most obtuse of us. One commentator, seeing water from a water canon being forced down the throat of a fellow human being who had gay-inclinations, wrote that he should be used to having “things shoved down his throat.” Ouch.

And then there are the gay-friendly people (who—get this—are not so “friendly” after all). In fact, on one particular site, they had some very disturbing things to say about people who don’t agree with gay marriage.[1] One commentator called the anti-gay people, his/her “opponents,” too stupid to engage in dialogue. They lacked “rational” behavior. Another went on a rant calling everyone who disagreed with his position on gay marriage “morons, idiots, fanatics, bigots, etc.” And another commentator said something that stuck. He said that this family which has, as of recently, refused to bake a cake for a gay couple, has committed a “crime.” The commentator dropped “hate” and simply used “crime” instead.

I don’t believe in Allah. I want my readers to be aware of that. Now, given this reality, have I committed a “crime”? I mean, I don’t believe in pro-Allah supporters. I don’t support them. I don’t go to their “parades” (i.e., mosques). I don’t read their “propaganda” (i.e., Koran). Sure, I would make them a cake. But that’s just me. I doubt a Muslim would say I committed some kind of “crime.” I doubt a Muslim, knowing my rejection of Allah, the Koran, and Muhammad, would call me a “bigot” who has committed a “hate crime.” I, likewise, would not call another fellow human being a “bigot” for being a utilitarian (I myself am deontological Kantian.) I hate utilitarianism. It’s my own moral sense. I would not marry a utilitarian. Am I a bigot? Have I committed a “hate crime”? What the hell is a hate crime?

If I have seen any hate, it has been reading these articles. Hate is not a crime—it is a condition of the human heart. It is not something “out there.” It is—pointing at my chest—something “in here.” Now, please point a finger at yourself. That, right there, is capable of hate. No, not of hate crime (few of us are Hitlers). Few are capable of “hate crime.” Please do humanity a favor: speak of hate, but do not speak of hate crime. It is not a polite thing to mention in civilized society. I assure you, people don’t commit hate crimes when they disagree with you. Utilitarians are not committing hate crimes when they criticize us deontologists. Christians are not committing hate crimes when they debate atheists. Muslims are not committing hate crimes when they refuse to serve pork or alcohol. (The Gaystapo needs to come after them next. The idea was mine.) Gay people are not committing hate crimes when they marry someone they love.

Sexuality is not some end-all and be-all. (In America, maybe.) Enough human beings on earth care for other things. Monks and nuns are human beings, too—even if some of them are asexual (or sexually inactive). My sexuality is virtually non-existent. Am I less human? I’m a single, white male. Our obsession with sex has led to this. To this state of affairs. Pitirim Sorokin was right: we have become a “museum of pathology.” (Look at all the hate, petty lawsuits, etc.) I would like to elaborate on Sorokin’s comment: our culture is a “museum of sexuality.” The only thing we care about is what a male does with his dick. That’s disgusting. Pathetic. Base.

Mozart, please. I need some civilized shit in this place.

I am starting to lose faith in evolution. This society as a whole is scaring me. We are not progressing. We are regressing. Or so it seems. But I still have faith in us. We can break free. I believe in freedom. I defend disagreement. I actually like gay people. I actually like anti-gay people (my parents, for example, are very anti-gay). I like freedom. Since when have we—whether pro-gay or anti-gay—decided that freedom was not worth it? Since when have we placed grandmas in prison for acting on their beliefs, on their freedoms? Is this a world you want?

The political philosopher John Rawls developed the idea of creating policies created under a “veil of ignorance.” I would like us to imagine a world in which we don’t know who we would be. We don’t know if we’ll be the little, old anti-gay grandma making cookies. We don’t know if we’ll be born with feelings for the same-sex. We don’t know any of that. What kind of laws would we make? What kind of policies? What would we do? Would we punish people for acting on their beliefs when they resulted in no physical damage? Or, as in the Oregon case, would we sue people for “emotional damage”? (What the hell is that?) Imagine a world in which law suits could be initiated on the basis that somebody “felt” like somebody else “emotionally damaged” them. Imagine a world in which unrequited love was considered “emotional damage”? Where a gay person falling for a straight person sued the straight person for “not loving me back.” What if the straight person sued a gay person on similar grounds? Where do we stop? Where do we start?

We quickly see how hard it would be to handle and maintain such a world in which emotional stability and homeostasis was a right. But it’s not a right. I don’t sue my wife for causing emotional damage because she was involved in a car accident. I don’t sue my 2-year-old daughter for causing “emotional distress” because she was sick with the flu. I don’t sue people for believing things with which I disagree with. If my life was in danger, if their actions caused physical damage, a lawsuit would be appropriate. If people were starving, and someone refused to serve gays, that would be a problem.

Whatever the solutions may be, the stuff being discussed on the Internet right now, in our society, is ridiculous. I don’t buy it. (And, please, do disagree.) I don’t know the answers to our problems—and why should we even think such “answers” even exist?—but I know one thing for certain: all of this “hate crime talk” needs to stop. Right. Now.

Humans have been trying to figure out this “freedom” thing for a very long time. We are perfecting it. We haven’t yet reached our destination. The ethics of freedom sure could use a little bit of love, disagreement, diversity, tolerance, acceptance, etc. We certainly must allow people to disagree with us, with society. We certainly must allow people to believe whatever they’d like. I’m not one to punish thought-crime. I’m not one who has thought-phobia. At least not yet. I think we can do so much better.

[1] I am referring to lgbtqnation.com.

Choose to create a comment on this existential blog...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s