Gay Marriage:
On gay marriage: I agree that feds need not intrude. So fed candidates need not take positions. But state candidates and state governments have no choice but to take positions when the issue is presented. In these times, in states where the issue is unresolved, I expect it will be raised, and the electorate will expect candidates, when asked, as they will be, to state their positions.
When proponents push the issue, I do not see it as minor or as something that should be compromised on. Either our civilization will base the raising of each next generation upon families and family based values or it won't. If we don't, I don't see the alternatives (government raised children, welfare raised children, government facilitated broken homes) as being "better." Indeed, much of the progressive agenda has likely advanced precisely because family values have slipped, challenged as they are by professors whose expertise is often confined to book learning.
I don't see gay marriage as a tolerance issue. I certainly don't care what adults do in their bedrooms. But I do see the issue as important. What sustaining values does government need to support (or at least not undermine), and how may that support be undermined by the state's sponsoring of gay marriage?
I don't think a state should just allow gay marriage "in the interest of fairness," as seen through the narrow or excited focus of gay activists. I think the issue should be studied. Although the issue is still somewhat novel, there are societies that allow gay marriage. We should wait, study, observe, compare, and carefully and objectively consider the data. We should give due consideration to the potential downside, rather than just assume there is no downside. That would be the reasonable thing to do. There may well be at stake larger repercussions to the fabric of society.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In death, all particular perspectives of consciousness must eventually become collateral damage from the unfolding purposes of the field of consciousness. Our material world is not the best of all possible; we are only its gardeners, always pursuing communion, and perhaps eventual merger, with a happier state of being.
My Blog List
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(171)
-
▼
June
(42)
- Religious Literalism and Fundamentalism
- Missing Budget
- Charitable Foundations Run By Elites
- Purpose and Pursuit of Fulfillment
- In Whom Do We Trust?
- Obama's Base
- Hedge Fund Cons
- Whore Media
- Transcendent Moral Order
- Afghanistan
- The Little Girl Who Wanted to Replace God
- Little Girl Minority Cultures
- Religious Mind Rot
- False Liberty and Stimulation by Sirens
- Education of a Progressive
- Party Discipline
- Elites, Agenda 21, and NWO
- Greedy Science v. Social Wisdom and Meta Intuition
- Center Cannot Hold
- Libertarian Smears
- Gangster Government vs. Middle Class
- Gay Marriage
- Jews and Minority Cultures
- Restoring Checks and Balances
- Progress in Immateriality
- Pseudoscience
- Sissification of Military
- Open Borders
- Has Hubble made God small?
- Has America already been overthrown?
- The Race Card
- Responsible Empathy
- Multi Culti Rot
- Stoners
- Elites as cover for tyranny
- Consciousness as source of fuzz
- Fuzz
- Resetting Checks and Balances
- Double-Think
- Femimen
- Socialism is a one word contradiction
- Sacrifices of Progressives
-
▼
June
(42)
6 comments:
To the extent Conservatism is founded in values beyond the logic of material empiricism, it is the counterweight to various ideas that seem different, but which are all in opposition, i.e., Communism, National Socialism, Oligarchic Elitism, Religious Fascism, Progressivism, Liberalism, and, yes, Objectivist Libertarianism. All such opposing ideas implicate a presumption that science is uber alles, that free will is an illusion, and that "progress" will show us the error of spiritual beliefs, the error of trying to reconcile the holism with the particular, and the way to a better morality that is based not on free will but on "objectivism." Such counterweights to Conservatism always lead to tragedy and farce.
Given history, it is farcical that Objectivist Libertarians imagine the way to smaller government is to use government to push spiritually reconciling ideas and values into a small corner. Has there ever been a sustainable, defensible society based on small government without a culture of assimilating values that were beyond validation, except in intuition and not in empiricism?
why do lamestream media outlets persist in publishing looney perspectives on the news and denigrating American common sense about what is needed to sustain a representative republic? What do their owners and advertisers stand to gain from this? What tremendous advantage is to be paid, once America is converted to just another elitist oligarchy?
I don't believe for a second that collectivizing thugs actually believe they will serve the people's best interests. In effect, instead of soliciting campaign contributions from citizens, the political frontmen are now extorting funding for their campaigns by channeling tax revenues to their media shills.
So who are the oligarchs, who stands to gain, and why do those who stand to lose not stand stronger against this? Cui bono? Something is rotten; something does not compute. I want to see a perp walk. Big time.
People like Rosie rely primarily on emotions and feelings. They crave validation by their heroes, who also rely on emotions and feelings. Is Rosie's not the personality of a sado-masochist? Can such people feel secure without authenticating their places within a hierarchy of dominance? Is that place secured based on reasoning power, or is it secured based on audacity of presence? How different is Rosie from Obama, really?
These ducklings are artsy people, and they are repulsed by anyone who dares to think about an issue in any way that disturbs the comfort of their duck lines. Their places are matters of entitlement, based purely on the emotional content of their claims. Reasoning is discordant to their ears, and it must be shouted down. It is unbearable to these thin skinned Progs that most folks must win their daily bread based on substantive merit, as opposed to emotional demonstrations.
Forget law and civilization. For the Rosies of the world, every trial in every context is based on one bottom line: Ladies and Gentlemen, which of the parties do you find to be the most emotionally compelling? Jury instruction number 1: You are not to bother your pretty heads with determining facts, but with adolescent, progressive determinations of bathos. Trials are not contests for proving facts, but contests for strutting one's beauty or demonstrating one's bathos. All issues must be determined not based on hard lines or reason, but based on superficialities of emotion. We don't need no stinking laws or country. All you really need are your feelings. (sarc)
Not so long ago, I suspect parents who were gifted with a childhood felt it important to pass that on to their children. Somewhere along the line, that sense of obligation was broken. Suddenly, with the 60's, a majority came to believe they were perpetually entitled. Once everyone was perpetually entitled, no one was obliged. Parents were not longer responsible to pass on the gift of a childhood to their children. That became something to which the children were entitled ... from the State.
So here we are, with little lingering sense of intergenerational obligation. Boomers expecting society to support them in their old age are about to get doused in the water of cold reality. As are Americans expecting to preserve a meaningful republic ... unless we can stand and shake off the poison that Progressives have been serving us for so long.
Obama is not helping anyone. He is hurting everyone, except perhaps a few sociopaths who want power to run everyone else's life. What he has going for him are the means and the will to deceive an easily bribed coalition of illiterati.
Why do we find ourselves cheapening marriage? Well, we seem to have forgotten (if ever we learned) the centrality of marriage to the sustenance of viable, humane, Western civilization. The values associated with marriage – as traditionally accepted, celebrated, and even supported within government’s tax base – are irreplaceable. To accept every alternative to marriage, to celebrate and charge to the community the cost of defending and financing every diverse desire or institution, as if it should be equivalent to marriage, is to cheapen and marginalize that which is most fundamental to the sustenance of decent civilization. Indeed, it is to lay the groundwork for central government to find it necessary to intrude its tentacles ever further into how the next generation is to be raised.
Few care what is generally done by those who choose not to engage in traditional marriage. But many care that not every relationship should be entitled to the same social centrality and support as marriage. Indeed, once every conceivable desire and diverse relationship is thought to carry rights and entitlements, then how shall any viable government define, support, sustain, or propagate anything?
The advocacy of relationship-entitlement-theorists (daydreaming adolescents) -- i.e., oligarchical hegemonists (new world order freaks), collectivists (tribal barbarians), communists (spaced out utopians), socialists (control freaks), progressives (regressives), liberals (statists), even libertarians (high narcissisists) – tends more often towards dissolution into dissimulative goo of anarchy, i.e., precursor to breakdown of civilization, i.e., horror.
If you want to see how the collective can redefine marriage once traditional Western marriage is undermined, look at Islam. If you want to see how children can be shaped to turn to collectivism and against their parents, look to communism and progressively encroaching education. Do we really want the village treasury to be required to expend equal sums to take over and "make equal" the definition and detailed regulation of family values?
Why do we find ourselves cheapening marriage? Well, we seem to have forgotten (if ever we learned) the centrality of marriage to the sustenance of viable, humane, Western civilization. The values associated with marriage – as traditionally accepted, celebrated, and even supported within government’s tax base – are irreplaceable. To accept every alternative to marriage, to celebrate and charge to the community the cost of defending and financing every diverse desire or institution, as if it should be equivalent to marriage, is to cheapen and marginalize that which is most fundamental to the sustenance of decent civilization. Indeed, it is to lay the groundwork for central government to find it necessary to intrude its tentacles ever further into how the next generation is to be raised.
Few care what is generally done by those who choose not to engage in traditional marriage. But many care that not every relationship should be entitled to the same social centrality and support as marriage. Indeed, once every conceivable desire and diverse relationship is thought to carry rights and entitlements, then how shall any viable government define, support, sustain, or propagate anything?
The advocacy of relationship-entitlement-theorists (daydreaming adolescents) -- i.e., oligarchical hegemonists (new world order freaks), collectivists (tribal barbarians), communists (spaced out utopians), socialists (control freaks), progressives (regressives), liberals (statists), even libertarians (high narcissisists) – tends more often towards dissolution into dissimulative goo of anarchy, i.e., precursor to breakdown of civilization, i.e., horror.
If you want to see how the collective can redefine marriage once traditional Western marriage is undermined, look at Islam. If you want to see how children can be shaped to turn to collectivism and against their parents, look to communism and progressively encroaching education. Do we really want the village treasury to be required to expend equal sums to take over and "make equal" the definition and detailed regulation of family values?
Post a Comment