I think this correspondence between Chad and Kate exemplifies the problem that cultural opinions, such as "gay rights," can quickly become a "truth" or an unqualified standard to which others who disagree can be held captive not because of the right or wrongness of their stance but because of the sensitivity of the issue or the changing cultural bias which doesn't normally require that ideas be tested, just quickly accepted. Chad chastises Mr. Mouw for his opinion, but then Chad states that those who disagree with him are "empirically wrong." Empirically wrong? Upon what empirical evidence does his opinion rest? I suggest Chad should listen to the show again. I find it frustrating that anyone who disagrees with the idea of "gay rights" is characterized as a "hate crime" criminal. I do not support violence in any way. I have a standard which I believe is true, the same as Chad, but in opposition to Chad's. How should we treat one another? Within the media, Chad's opinion is generally given the higher moral ground. Why? Because these ideas have been empirically tested? Or because of the ramifications of opposing a large body of enraged citizens (who might be disproportionately represented within the media and entertainment industry)? Might does not make right, is an old and true saying. I believe what is right or wrong is an absolute, although I don't claim to have absolute knowledge, but I do have a desire to find the "truth" and at present I have an opinion based upon my efforts. Should I have the right to express my opinion without fear of being labeled as someone "empirically wrong" or as a "hate crime criminal" simply because I disagree? If I don't then this is simply prejudice in reverse. To find the truth we must search and communicate civilly with one another. I applaud this program's effort for not setting a standard of hypocrisy that might otherwise be popular, but dishonest in it's effort at revealing truth.
More information about text formats