Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:01 pmWhen you recommend "banning" freedom of expression, you appear to lack confidence in your ability to rationally defend your positions. If homosexuality is wicked, make your case (instead of banning Gay Pride, which is simply obnoxious and autocratic).
It is certainly not within my power to ban gay pride parades. However, it is within a society's power to determine what sort of public displays they will allow and disallow. What I am talking about is how social mores change, and are changed. They can go in one direction certainly (social condoning) but they can also go in the other. It depends on what people value and what they want to stand for.
I did not make any statement that homosexuality is wicked. What I do say is that it (and other sexual deviancies) should be
suppressed. Not condoned. Not advertised. And in our culture today -- definitely in the English speaking world -- they are advocated for.
My view is that all people, whether homosexual or heterosexual, should elevate and value the heterosexual union and the family. That should have the top value-slot. And I assure you that the reason I would advocate for this are sound indeed.
The Roman Catholic Church (which you admire) has a long history of banning books. The vast majority of banned books are not pornographic. Instead, they are "heretical" or criticized the Church. The illumination of rational discourse should be sufficient to make your case; banning is a form of intellectual cowardice.
I admire some aspects and parts of Catholic social doctrine. The Catholic Church does indeed recommend that certain books be read, and it does recommend that other books *dangerous to the faith* be excluded. And though I read all sort of material, and material that is illicit by the Church's standards (which I do not pay attention to), it is the concept
behind the admonition that still interests me. And that concept is that *a person must be careful about what they expose themselves to*. It is not a Catholic idea but a Platonic idea -- and it is sound. And they reasons why it is sound can certainly be expressed philosophically and rationally.
Banning gay pride parades could only occur in a society that grows tired, and intolerant of, excessive productions that cross proper bounds. They could only arrive at that decisiveness if they had been moved by
ideas.
Of course since as you state yours are minority positions, if you favor banning some speech, yours will probably be the first to go. Perhaps that would be a good thing, but I will continue to support your right to speak, even when that right allows you to argue against the same right for others.
I draw distinctions between upstanding rights to freedom and expression, which are condoned by upright social consensus, and expression which violate reasonable or proper bounds. As an example, a gay pride parade that is explicitly pornographic, in my view, crosses a proper line.
When I say "Gay pride marches should be banned" I use that as a starting point to talk about sexual issues, sexual explicitness, proper limits, improper limits, etc. But to ban gay pride marches, today, could only occur in a society of people, a majority, who felt it best to make that choice.
I am aware that we live now in a culture (at least in America but this is not so in Europe) where one can say anything, express anything, and one is protected in doing so (or so they say). My Liberalism is of a different, and a more restrained sort. I do not think that all speech (expression) is necessarily legitimate. However, I am
aware of the *slippery slope*. There are definite problems to prohibiting certain expressions.
