tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post3378313006797180335..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: With "Support" Like This...Gus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-52164961333959592152013-04-14T03:19:30.562-06:002013-04-14T03:19:30.562-06:00Thanks for pointing out that superb commentary, Sn...Thanks for pointing out that superb commentary, Snedcat. I have found aspects of the recent progress (?) regarding gay marriage very odd and this has helped me understand why.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-10285856870220196352013-04-14T01:31:18.761-06:002013-04-14T01:31:18.761-06:00Yo Gus, you write, "Americans should support ...Yo Gus, you write, "Americans should support gay marriage because they understand its relationship to their own freedom and, in turn, their own well-being -- not simply because it's what they are told to do." <i>Spiked Online</i> has a good essay about the issue dissenting, as is their purpose in life, with the vapid mainstream. A good sample:<br /><br /><i>How do we account for this extraordinary consensus, for what is tellingly referred to as the ‘surrender’ to gay marriage by just about everyone in public life? And is it a good thing, evidence that we had a heated debate on a new civil right and the civil rightsy side won? I don’t think so. I don’t think we can even call this a ‘consensus’, since that would imply the voluntaristic coming together of different elements in concord. It’s better described as conformism, the slow but sure sacrifice of critical thinking and dissenting opinion under pressure to accept that which has been defined as a good by the upper echelons of society: gay marriage. Indeed, the gay-marriage campaign provides a case study in conformism, a searing insight into how soft authoritarianism and peer pressure are applied in the modern age to sideline and eventually do away with any view considered overly judgmental, outdated, discriminatory, ‘phobic’, or otherwise beyond the pale.</i><br /><br />And:<br /><br /><i>In truth, the extraordinary rise of gay marriage speaks, not to a new spirit of liberty or equality on a par with the civil-rights movements of the 1960s, but rather to the political and moral conformism of our age; to the weirdly judgmental non-judgmentalism of our PC times; to the way in which, in an uncritical era such as ours, ideas can become dogma with alarming ease and speed; to the difficulty of speaking one’s mind or sticking with one’s beliefs at a time when doubt and disagreement are pathologised. Gay marriage brilliantly shows how political narratives are forged these days, and how people are made to accept them.</i><br /><br />This is from a recent issue of <i>Spiked</i> on gay marriage that is, as always, combative, sharp, and well worth reading. And while I support gay marriage, I also agree with a good deal of what <a href="http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/12273/" rel="nofollow">Brendan O'Neill</a> has written, "As I say, nothing in this debate makes sense. This is such a relatively overnight concern, and is so unrooted in political campaigning or historical substance, that it would make as much sense if, tomorrow, every politician and commentator in the land suddenly started talking about how important it is to give women the right to live in treehouses. After all, there are probably some women who want to live in treehouses, and the public might well support their right to do so while also arguing that making it happen should not be a parliamentary priority....The true driving force behind it is not any real or publicly manifested hunger amongst homosexual couples to get wed, far less a broader public appetite for the reform of the institution of marriage; rather it is the need of the political and media class for an issue through which to signify its values and advertise its superiority....It is not a democratic reform, begrudgingly enacted in response to a democratic demand; it is better understood as voluntary elite tinkering with a traditional institution in the hope of presenting the elite as both daring and caring."Snedcatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-35897878727471082242013-04-08T11:22:49.145-06:002013-04-08T11:22:49.145-06:00I have heard -- and used to agree with -- some sec...I have heard -- and used to agree with -- some secular arguments to the effect that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman. I no longer agree with that contention, but even when I did, I thought that homosexuals should at the least be able to have legally-recognized civil unions. <br /><br />That said, I certainly oppose the government attempting to go beyond setting a corrected <i>legal</i> definition of marriage and attempting to infringe upon the right of the people to free speech, including those who don't wish to call gay civil unions "marriages", be it out of bigotry or because of actual arguments or reservations founded on not having thought the issue through to their own satisfaction.<br /><br />At worst, you are arguing against that. At best, you take the position that gays should have civil unions that we not be forced to call marriages. This is still a semi-free country. Even if the court legalizes gay marriage, call such unions what you will and be prepared to explain why.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-31301405214686170062013-04-08T11:00:18.728-06:002013-04-08T11:00:18.728-06:00I regret your confusion on this matter, it's r...I regret your confusion on this matter, it's really quite simple. The cat can have her kittens in the oven, but that doesn't make them biscuits.Glennnoreply@blogger.com