Legislating against speech is a bad idea - for the most part it's subjective and the test of reasonableness is hard found. Crimes are crimes regardless of who they're committed against or why - the thug who beats up a homosexual person commits the same crime as the thug who beats up a heterosexual. Why do we need laws to protect minorities when the main priniciple that they're protected under, namely the right to be treated equally, stands on it own?In response to people who say that people against gay marriage should not be allowed to air their views, at all. She says.
I think it's censorship rooted in a smug superiority that's afraid, or unwilling to engage opponents in a meaningful discourse. If you are so adamant that those who do not agree with you are so fundamentally wrong, why shy away from the public forums where you can competently and convincingly dismantle their arguments? Why resort to name calling and excessive labelling?I could not agree more. This is why I am a liberal hating liberal. While I disagree with people against Gay Marriage I am totally supportive of their right to air there views in a discussion. And before anyone says what about Nazi Sympathiers. A few years ago a radio presenter had the leader of the BNP on. Many people protested the fact that he was on and wanted to pull the man of the show. But the presenter let him on, let him say his views and then ripped his views apart in debate. If he had censored him the BNP would have gain sympathy and a propaganda victory(like Gerry Adams on the Late Late years ago when Gay Byrne refused to shake his hand). However because his views were turn apart many of their supporters may have thought twice about continuing to support them. Ignoring Bigots does not make them go away. Confronting them does.