Response: Ben Sapiro, CNS News, Call Gay Communities "Intolerant" In An Appearently Brain-Dead Trance

When CNS News isn't berating the Unions of America, this far-Right propaganda outlet can often be found providing misinformation about gay rights and abortion. However, the "Conservative" columnist, hypocrite Ben Shapiro, is too much. I have called hypocrisy on Mr. Shapiro, because he doesn't even follow his Conservative roots, which exemplify a smaller federal Government. However, this man has had the nerve to propose laws against pornography and limiting speech in anti-War protests. Regardless, Ben Shapiro spits upon the First Amendment, yet again, with his latest article, which needs response. As per usual, the author's text will be bolded and my response will be regular.

"Gay Community Is Intolerant, Too" by Ben Shapiro

Did he just admit that the Fundamentalist Conservatives are intolerant? Did he just agree with the Liberal LGBT activists without even intending to?

Pope Benedict made a “shocking” statement Monday. He said the Roman Catholic Church opposes homosexual acts and wishes to help those who engage in such acts. The Church, he said, “should … protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed.”

The previous week, the Rev. Rick Warren made a similarly “shocking” statement. In opposing gay marriage, Warren said, “I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”

The first two paragraphs are relatively fine, Shapiro is simply repeating news of the last two weeks. Aside from the unnecessary quotation marks around the word shocking, my only real criticism stems from Pastor Warren's comments. Marriage has been redefined many times in the past 5,000 years. Marriage originated as a form of trade between families. Eventually, the joining of two lovers became religious, but even since marriage has been redefined. It was redefined 40 years ago to provide more equality to Black people. If Rick Warren is against incest, pedophilia, and polygamy, then why doesn't he protest that instead of normal couples who happen to be LGBT?

The gay community attacked both the pope and Warren with gusto. The Rev. Sharon Ferguson, chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, labeled the pope’s words, “totally irresponsible and unacceptable in any shape or form.” Meanwhile, Brad Luna, director of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, jabbed, “Rick Warren is somebody who has opposed our equality.”

I'm not sure if "attacked" is good diction, because no one has physically "attacked" neither Rick Warren nor the Pope.

Here’s my question: What’s the big deal? It isn’t as though the pope and Rick Warren are articulating anything new -- they’re articulating the same traditional Judeo-Christian perspective that has been a moral standard for thousands of years. So why the hubbub? Warren is not stating that he wants to criminalize homosexuality. And the pope is merely suggesting that sexuality may be flexible, and that sexual behavior can be changed. Where’s the big threat to the gay community?

First off, the threat is that people actually believe the baseless claims that both the Pope and Rick Warren spew. Neither has used actual facts, statistics, or data in their hate speech, only analogies that hardly fit. Shapiro, allow me to ask you a question. How does having the Virgin Marry on the cover of Playboy hurt Christianity? How is Harry Potter a threat to Christianity? Moreover, how are a group of gays and lesbians, most of whom have no interest in being married by a bunch of homophobes, going to threaten the church?

The gay community constantly asks: If we want to marry, how does it hurt you? Here’s a similar question: If religious people don’t approve of homosexual behavior, how does it hurt you? We’re not advocating violence against gays and lesbians -- far from it. We’re not going to invade your bedrooms and toss your same-sex partners in prison. We’re not advocating that you be fired from your job. We’re not saying that you’re rotten human beings. We’re just saying we don’t approve of your behavior. It’s that simple. So how does it hurt you?

It does hurt the LGBT community. I will not divulge into every example of how it can hurt people, but I'll provide the best example: the Hate-Crimes Bill. Many Conservative-Fundamentalists are against legislation adding LGBT to the list of hate crimes. Their reasoning? Some half-brained, untrue, idea that their freedom or religion and speech will be persecuted if such a measure is passed. The only problem with that logic? It's not true. Who is being hurt by not passing this measure? The thousands of LGBT people who are harrassed for who they are, just because members of the intolerant-Right wrongly assumes that their religion - which IS protected under the Hate Crimes bill - may be treat upon.

The fact is, of course, that a religious standard of marriage does hurt gay people. The gay community wishes to hijack marriage and use it as a shield to legitimize traditionally immoral behavior. By opposing gay marriage, traditionally moral folks prevent the gay community from having its way.

Traditionally - I'm going on an assumption here that Mr. Shapiro is referring to a pre-1960's "traditional" - homosexuality is immoral. While at first, "traditional" America may sound fine, there are many problems. Women in the past were treated awfully, there was little tolerance for non-Whites in our country, and religious intolerance was still quite rampant. Who exactly is "hijack[ing] marriage"? Does anyone actually believe that Anderson Cooper, Ellen Degeneres, Rachel Maddow, Amanda Palmer, Clay Aiken, and Angelina Jolie sit around scheming up plans to "legitimize traditionally immoral behavior"? All major non-partisan studies have shown that homosexuality is neither a choice nor is alterable.

But by the same exact standard, the gay community’s insistence that homosexuality be respected -- their insistence that figures from Pope Benedict to Rick Warren treat homosexuality as a perfectly acceptable way of life -- hurts religious people. By opposing religious people’s freedom to articulate their view on homosexuality, they encroach on religious freedom.
Someone’s standard has to win. If the pope and Warren have their way, traditional morality will remain the standard and the gay community will feel left out. If the gay community has its way, traditional morality will be discarded and the religious community will feel left out.
Whose standard should win?
The moral answer might be complex -- as a religious person, I favor the traditional marriage movement -- but the systemic answer is simple: Let the people decide. We live in a republic, and that means that the American people must be given the freedom to determine which societal standards they want implemented.
Advocates for traditional morality have won virtually every electoral battle over gay marriage. The gay community has won its victories in the courtroom, calling on elitist judges to twist the words of state constitutions. It’s illegitimate, and it cuts against the most basic American value: the right of the people to decide how to regulate their communities.
The gay community has every right to oppose the pope and Warren. And the pope and Warren have every right to blast the gay community. That’s freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But let’s stop pretending that the pope and Warren are intolerant while the gay community is not. There’s intolerance on both sides. But someone has to win. The people should decide who wins.

Truthfully, I grouped the last few sections together because, simply, Benny-boy misses out on a valuable piece of information: we DON'T live in a total "republic", we elect people to make decisions for us. So, the commentary on the so-called "elitist judges" (Care to elaborate how exactly they're elitist, Mr. Shapiro?), how this entire process is completely "illegitimate", and how it's "the right of the people to decide how to regulate their communities", isn't exactly true. First off, the word "communities" can throw many people off. How many of us actually consider their ENTIRE state to be "their community"? Second, it's not our right: we don't live in that type of country. Contrary to popular belief, we do not usually vote on such hot-button issues. We ELECT people to vote for us. Haven't you ever taken Eighth Grade U.S. History, Mr. Shapiro?

While I applaud Ben "Hypocrite" Shapiro for acknowledging how intolerant the anti-gay movement (and inherently himself) is, he has yet to point out intolerance on the LGBT Communities' end. Disagreeing with a single religious point does not make anyone a bigot. I would enjoy watching people attempt to justify Exodus 21:7, Ephesians 5:22-24, and Leviticus 25:44, then turn right around and tell me that they believe that homosexuality is wrong.