Forum Thread

the right of righteous refusal

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 Posts
  • Independent
    Massachusetts
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    A correspondent forwarded me an email concerning the banning of a series
    of “Archie” comics because they involved a gay relationship. An Asian government
    agency had determined that the content was contrary to their national morality, thus
    the ban on sales and distribution. (Archie comics a popular read in contemporary
    far east?? But that’s beside the point. I consider the point in my dissertation below).

    If a comic segment about a gay relationship or marriage is against any private-sector standard, but especially if it conflicts with a nation's cultural position -- it should be their "freedom from speech" (or depiction) to blacklist the material.
    I'm as open-minded as it's possible to be while not trespassing into illegality. But I don't assume that my acceptance of what's "deviant" or "depraved" in others’ estimations is mandated for some business because of the freedom of speech and press laws of the U.S. One case in point is 7-11 stores which, many years ago, stopped selling Playboy and Hustler and many other magazines because of their content. I feel that's the right of the private sector. In my estimation, considering certain contraceptives as "baby-killers" is not only conceptual mutilation (conceptual as in the concepts -- such as if a "baby" is even just in pre-blastula stage).
    But if some evangelical enterprise (Hobby Co. and I think there's a food place too) thinks providing this pill or that device is sinful, it should be their right under the Constitution to not provide funds for it. Let there be a substitute or let the government somehow arrange financing for the item (deductible from employee's tax, for example), or set up a program to provide the item (Contraceptives accessibility within a kind of Agribusiness subsidy paradigm)!!!

    A public institution should have to adhere to the laws of the land, whether its management considers LGBT or other permutations and variations of humanity disgusting or sinful or whatever. There are laws against discrimination now for gender/sexual "orientations". (I find that an inappropriate term. Too psychological. Or perhaps someone with Marfan's Syndrome has a tallness "orientation" -- dwarfism is an example of shorness "orientation"? Gender/sexuality surely does involve a psychological dimension (in behavior -- whereas the dwarf doesn't enact dwarf-relations) -- but the basis, the organic (even chromosomal) infrastructure is substantive -- how one is made so much determines how one makes it with another.
    A private institution, for example some evangelical college, should have the right of refusal. And thus lose any rights of government support, even of tax exempt status.
    Rather than force mores and ethics and even pills and put-ins upon those offended or religiously outraged -- their freedom of their pursuit of happiness (and to them "heavenliness") should be primary.
    What if the issues I've mentioned above were a bit more "kinky"? What if hard core sado-masochism or bondage and discipline and other widely termed "perversions" were at issue? Even a Jerry Falwell College of Christliness would likely be seen by the "mainstream" public as within its rights to not register heavily engaged members of such "underground sex clubs" for the next semester.
    In cases in this country it's come to the role-reversal of religiosity and diversity. In our country's heavenly heritage, such was the religion-state sinister synchrony that any deviance from the prescribed Puritanism could be severely punished. Just one of the
    examples I’ve run across was regarding Quakers (I paraphrase . ."If any Quaker refuses to cease practicing and or preaching he shall be tarred and feathered and expelled from the town. And if he should return one of his ears shall be cut off and he shall be made to labor to pay for his removal to a distance. And if it be a woman Quaker she shall be severely whippt.".)
    Then came the Catholic Church's "blacklist" -- which was just a bit more selectively extreme than the censorship of what was in schools and libraries of the land in general.
    Such is far from the case in recent years. But the "open forum" wherein even One Hundred Twenty Days of Sodomy (by the Marquis deSade) appeared on shelves in KMart or Mars or whichever it was -- and can be obtained from the local library,
    . . . . such open-ness should not be an imposition upon others' sense of decency and morality.

    Thus, there should be limits. Perhaps limits need to be set into statutes. Federal? State? Regional? Maybe all, depending.
    Discriminating against sexual/gender embodiments (that's better than "orientations"?) must be against the law except in small, privately-held, religious-convictioned situations. Or maybe that would offend their sense of godliness and we should allow them to discriminate against blacks because probably a lot of them might find blacks to be offensive?)
    Religious or "righteousness" requisites for enrollments should have individuals' rights of decision.
    But for large organizations the law should provide for the benefit of the broadest base –
    the people inclusive of all their diversity, whether of dermal hue or determinations of
    sensual and self actualization and fulfillment.

    And in a more general conclusion, should there be or not be upset (by either side and/or both) regarding school materials dealing with sexuality? Sex-ed seems to be rather settled-in to our school systems and social approbation (and others' tolerance at least in view of their inability to block it). But what about material, printed or taught, regarding homosexuality? That this represents some pervo-nefarious agenda to turn kids gay is only in the minds of homophobic extremists or Act-Out fringe factions (which do exist -- such as some "man-boy love" organization we've heard of now and then – please note
    that I’m not in any way suggesting that Act-Out and Man-boy are interrelated – I’m only
    exemplifying what’s seen as “extremism” by others. I would assume Act Out would be
    vehement in condemnation of pedophilia – which is somewhat an antonym of homosexuality – MEN.).

    But should sexual practices, sexuality's behaviors, be excluded from schools especially, and allowed exclusion from the local convenience store shelves, library listing?
    What if the specific subject of concern were . . .okay, . . .sado-masochism? Picture high school teacher in front of students . . . . "For this class, the subject will be sexual arousal unto release related to pain, the infliction of and/or by depending on whom. We need to realize that some people (a lot) experience their sexuality from such contexts and related devices . . . . and we must not be prejudiced against them any more than we should discriminate against homosexuals. Now for some examples of sado-masochism, please turn to page . . . . . . . ."
    How would that go over with you as parent?
    To teach, to insist on, true Christian love and acceptance and tolerance and (if it’s
    Involved subjectively, forgiveness should include all. But dealing with the dealings of the
    diversities, should not be determined in to the detriment of the peace of mind and of
    others.

    It's a fine line we're crisscrossing: with what and who is violating another's rights.
    At this point we're amazingly far beyond where we were even 40 years ago -- for everyone.
    Contraceptives used to be contraband -- against the law to sell!!
    Homosexuality was a crime!!
    And not all that long before that . . . . ." . . .a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking. Masturbation diagnosed as disease.
    But there need to be limits and lines drawn that one’s “criss” shouldn’t be allowed to “cross”. Such as a country’s rights of propriety, a private institution’s, an individual’s.