We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Basically, leftist academia and similar forces in government and the military are seeking to cleanse our institutions of believing Christians, is what it comes down to. The Christian students association at my college was forced several years ago now to sign an agreement that they would allow unrepentant homosexuals to be leaders of the association.
Being opposed to same sex marriage is a legitimate position to hold (just as legitimate as being in favor of same sex marriage) and certainly doesn't deserve to be responded to by name calling. What is the purpose in calling someone homophobic? Is it "merely" to state a political point of view like "pro-life" might be or is it more like using the "N" word to describe someone? I find that throwing around the word homophobic as a slur or insult to be very intolerant and unnecessarily so. It would seem that it is intended to intimidate, bully and control rather then express a difference in opinion.
It's interesting to read the letter submitted by Tito Craige to The Amherst Student. Craige is one of the six alums who asked the college president to disown and censure Professor Arkes.
Near the top of his letter, Craige says he cherishes academic freedom and "value[s] the chance to hear opposing ideas" yet he goes on in the largest part of his letter to show just how false that claim is. At the bottom of the letter he repeats he "defend[s] Arkes right to speak and [he] reject[s] censorship," yet every complaint he issues against Arkes is nothing but an excuse for censorship opposing Arkes' right to speak. He crudely implies Arkes is a bigot, yet offers no proof of that. He alleges Arkes' comments are "destructive" and "damaging to Amherst." He offers no poof of that either. In the end, it's only HIS personal opinion and dislike of Arkes, nothing more, with no counterargument offered to the Professor's own opinion.
Craige writes that if Arkes' "comments are racist, sexist, or hateful," they should be criticized, but he offers no examples of anything Arkes has written or said that can be OBJECTIVELY construed as such. The best he can do in three long paragraphs in the body of the letter is to cite a statement by Arkes that he finds "just plain ridiculous." Well, there you go! To a liberal a subjectively "ridiculous statement" is now sufficient grounds to end a tenured professor's right to speak out. But, no, it's not censorship. Because, just SHUT UP.
It appears to me from the illogic of his letter Mr. Craige's time as an undergraduate student at Amherst was wasted. I suggest community college might have served him equally well, and cost him or his family a lot less.