TV talk show host and comedian, Ellen DeGeneres has disinvited gospel singer and preacher, Kim Burrell after a video of a controversial anti – gay sermon went viral. Burrrell and Pharrell Williams were meant to perform together on the show. She confirmed the cancellation of Burrell’s invitation on Twitter:
For those asking, Kim Burrell will not be appearing on my show.
— Ellen DeGeneres (@TheEllenShow) January 3, 2017
Degeneres can have whoever she wants on her show. She can invite – or not invite – anyone she pleases. In one way, you can understand why she did it. To come out so publicly must be real hard, also, considering the backlash she received afterwards.
Since then, she’s been a strong advocate for the LGBTQ community, especially gay youth. She spoke out after a number of LGBT teens committed suicide in 2010, one of which was Tyler Clementi, who took his own life after a video of him kissing another man went viral.
LGBTQ+ community and allegations of censorship
Degeneres isn’t the only one who’ve refused anti – LGBTQ people a platform. In fact, it seems to be common for the mainstream LGBTQ community and supporters to silence opponents, or at least give them less space/ advertising to spout their views. Australia has seen a similar phenomenon. In 2015, channels 7 and 10 refused to air an advertisement by conservative group Marriage Alliance.
Controversially, the same year, SBS pulled an anti same – sex marriage advertisement from Australian Marriage Forum during the airing of the annual Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. Channels 7 and 9 ran the advertisement. SBS copped criticism from MPs and a commentator.
More recently, publisher Connor Court refused to publish a book by Australian Marriage Forum’s Dr. van Gend, which argued against same – sex parenting. To me, this goes too far. Why couldn’t Connor Court publish it, have it on shelves, have it read by prominent commentators and have it discussed on The Morning Show, The Project and Studio 10, etc. I doubt that any of the hosts on those shows would agree with the content, but what’s the harm of them expressing that and offering a chance for the public to respond?
The only exception I would put is if van Gend deliberately went out of his way to vilify the LGBTQ+ community. That should be off limits, period. Other than that, this is only a bad look for same – sex marriage supporters and the LGBTQ+ community.
Personal limits and mental health
Late last year, I listened to Mia Freedman’s podcasts where she aimed to “burst her bubble”. This was after the U.S. Election and the announcement that Donald Trump would be the next President of the United States.
Throughout a number of the podcasts, Freedman expressed how she had to stand back and not read or expose herself to anything about the U.S. Election because of how it affected her emotionally. I get that. In the context of same – sex marriage, it is a very hard – hitting and emotional debate for members of the LGBTQ+ community. Sometimes, you need to sit back and not read or listen to anything about that topic. I felt that way a bit last year, actually. But generally, I think we – the LGBTQ+ community and supporters, need to let other people speak and be heard.
We should be willing to challenge false assumptions if need be. Listen to people’s concerns about issues like freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Confront and argue against absurd misconceptions. But banning speech, airtime, etc from same – sex marriage opponents is not going to win any hearts. In fact, I think it’ll do the opposite.
I’m not saying agree. I’m not saying that we should sit back and let ourselves get abused by others. All I’m saying is let others speak. And be willing to challenge. At least then, if, or when, same – sex marriage is legal in Australia, the other side can say that it was a fair fight and, hopefully, the LGBTQ+ community can continue gaining acceptance without backlash.
What do you think?
5 replies on “Silencing debate will not help the LGBTQ community”
I agree with you. It is important to keep an open mind in order to grow. However I also understand why the LGBT community shuts out people who are against them.
Marriage predates the religions; they have no claim on it or how it’s utilized by anyone.
Backlash? Gays have, literally, been forcibly chemically neutered in the past; and I’m willing to bet numerous areas in the world still execute homosexuals. American’s, in this time, don’t do that sort of thing; the worst type of backlash the gays can face is some cultist yelling at them while holding a sign – barring the occasionally psychotic killer, who’s complete lack of sanity makes the target of their prejudice pretty irrelevant.
There has been backlash in some areas. I read that in Brazil, hate crime against LGBTQ+ has risen significantly.
In the U.S. there have been preachers that praised Omar Mateen over Orlando. I know it’s nothing compared to the countries where LGBTQ people are executed, but still it leave me uneasy.
Humanity remains savage. I guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of homosexuals would choose to be homosexual in Brazil, rather than being straight in North Korean, the Middle East, numerous locations throughout Africa, and a handful of other places where an early death will come no matter who you are.
Humanity sucks right now, until it gets better, people will die. Doesn’t matter who or what you are – there’s always a chance of some lunatic, or a group of lunatics, killing you for no rational reason. So, no, I don’t especially care about the backlash to the gays, more than I do anyone else’s suffering: there are plenty of people who have it far, far worse the gays – and, unlike the gays, those other people can’t avoid abuse by simply being discrete.