Deciding on ones world view used to involved understanding the sum total of mankinds history to the best of your ability. One wants to base big personal and certainly cultural decisions on thousands of years of available track record in that model. The following paragraph gives excellent insight into the "progressive" view:
As a proud, openly gay man, I am disappointed that anyone contributed to an effort to strip away the rights of any other citizen, especially the important, fundamental human right to marry the one you love. Eich and I would certainly disagree on that point (assuming he, along with so many other Americans, hasn’t changed his mind in the intervening six years). If indeed he valued me as a second-class citizen, or continued to advocate against my civil rights, I suspect we wouldn’t chat for long at a cocktail party. I would not be his friend.
"gay man"?? Who cares? Maybe I like tall skinny blonde women ... I don't happen to, but who the hell cares? How beastial must one be to willingly state that any sexual proclivity defines you? Perhaps, "I'm a proud owner of a strip club that believes that men are naturally wired to like looking at women's bodies, and women are naturally wired to want to show them their bodies"? At least that man is only saying that "liking to look at naked women" is "natural", even though he makes it his business (by choice I assume), he doesn't claim that the enjoyment of unclothed female form defines him as a person.
"Strip away the rights"? "Marriage" actually ISN'T a right! There are not likely to soon be "marriage stamps" available like "food stamps". Forgetting that fact for a moment, wasn't the issue about a POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION relative to ADDING or NOT ADDING state recognition of a relationship that some want to enter into? Eich made a political contribution in the path of the PREVENTION of a NEW recognition. No "stripping", no "right" involved at all.
"I would not be his friend". I continue to work on the maxims of the liberal mind. ( "We HAVE to DO something!", usually followed by "It's NOT our fault!") I'm thinking "I won't be your friend" is now in the running, it just sounds so much like true liberalism. Christianity requires the acceptance of the Truth (Christ) "like a child". Liberalism requires raising the impulses of a child to ultimate wisdom, as in, you damned well better agree with me or "I won't be your friend". Marvelous.
I would be happy to do all I could to be Gene Robinson's friend (the guy that wrote the article). My religious beliefs demand it of me in peril of my immortal soul for starters, but even though Robinson and I obviously disagree extensively, I find that to be a basic GOOD, in fact CRITICAL aspect of an actual pluralistic society!
Robinson OTOH is certain that his side is winning, so he is hoping that they will not show their hand with quite so much force, and potentially scare the marks. He sees a brave new world founded on the wisdom of institutions like "gay marriage" that are barely over a decade old. By making his new culture ever more oppressive (but quietly, PLEASE!), he sees some version of heaven on earth where individual lust is virtue, and the vast cultural wisdom of millennia is vice.
Robinson OTOH is certain that his side is winning, so he is hoping that they will not show their hand with quite so much force, and potentially scare the marks. He sees a brave new world founded on the wisdom of institutions like "gay marriage" that are barely over a decade old. By making his new culture ever more oppressive (but quietly, PLEASE!), he sees some version of heaven on earth where individual lust is virtue, and the vast cultural wisdom of millennia is vice.
No comments:
Post a Comment