Skip to main content

It's already happening

Mark Steyn says "I told you so" as the forces of unreason come out of the woodwork with Phil Robertson non sequiturs.

A while back, a well-known liberal columnist dismissed the argument that to compare heterosexual marriage on one hand and same-sex "marriage" on the other was to compare apples and oranges as "an obsession with fruit." I suppose if you're determined to avoid the central problem with same-sex  "marriage," refusing to engage the issue in the first place is as good a way of doing so as the other emotional and illogical arguments the Left uses for that purpose- and with which, in a modern society far more adept at emoting than at logic, it seems to be succeeding.

But the issue involved in  the civil rights movement of the '60's and today's one-sided debate (you get silenced if you're on the "wrong" side of it) concerning homosexuality isn't even close to being the same- not that the hate-filled folks who are so quick to falsely  accuse those who disagree with them of being haters and bigots  particularly care.  even if this is a revelation to some people, being African-American, for example, is a thing you are. So, admittedly, is being homosexual.

To hate people for being black or homosexual would be bigotry. The problem, though, is that hate, for the most part, isn't the issue, no matter how badly the Left would like to pretend otherwise.

Being  homosexual isn't the controversial issue. The ethics and social standing of homosexual behavior is the issue.  The moral- and social- objection to same-sex "marriage" and  the general equation of homosexual and heterosexual relationships is not to an ontological condition like being black. It's to behavior which Western society, for good reason, has traditionally regarded as immoral, and the treatment of that behavior as the equivalent of the foundational relationship of human society. Nor is it even about preventing people from engaging in that behavior, if they so choose.

It's about drawing a false analogy between it on one hand, and traditional marriage on the other- and merrily falsifying the evidence about what research has told us about the instability of gay and lesbian relationships and the small place monogamy has among gay men on the other. Time after time flawed studies with small samples have been cited as the definitive word on these matters, while larger and less seriously flawed studies have been shouted down in a desperate attempt to disqualify them and claim the high scientific ground.

With a logical fallacy like that at the heart of their argument, is it any surprise that the homosexualists spend so much time calling people names? Nobody seems to notice that there is a great deal more hate being spewed from the Left on this issue than from the supposedly bigoted Right.

You know. The bigoted Right which has a problem with certain behavior.


Popular posts from this blog

McMullin, Kasich, Hickenlooper, Huntsman, or somebody else sane in 2020!

I don't expect to be disenfranchised in 2020. I'm looking forward to Evan McMullin running against President Trump and whatever left-wing extremist the Democrats nominate. McMullin may or may not run for the Senate next year, and he may or may not run for president as an independent again next time around, but the nation can't afford to lose its most eloquent and intelligent critic of the populist takeover of the Republican party and the Executive Branch. We need the man in public life.

But interesting alternatives have developed. Ohio Gov. John Kasich has been mentioned as a potential primary challenger for Mr. Trump. I hope somebody continues the fight for the soul of my former party, even though I believe it to be a lost cause. Entrepreneur Mark Cuban is reportedly also considering a challenge to Mr. Trump. While I tend to see him at this point as somewhere to the left of where a candidate I would feel comfortable supporting might be, I would wish him well. Still, I see…

A modest proposal for a shocking innovation which is completely within the rules but which would, if adopted, revolutionize college football

I call it defense.

The idea- crazy as it may sound- is to supplement the scoring of points by your offense with an attempt to stop the other team from scoring them. Yeah, I know.  Really "out there," isn't it? But it has a history of winning not only games but championships. Modern college teams should try it more.

I'm a bit bummed about the Rose Bowl outcome but amused by the score. It seems that certain conferences aren't sure whether they're playing college football or high school basketball! I've noticed that in the scores of Sooner games. Last season the nation's college teams set a record by scoring an average of slightly more than 30 points each per game. That's a lot. Historically, that's a REAL lot.

The final score of the Rose Bowl was 54-48, though to be fair that was in double overtime. But to get there, the teams had to be tied 45-45 at the end of regulation! Last year was even worse. Southern Cal beat Penn State 52-49- in regulat…

A third party President in 2020?

I had the pleasure of meeting Joel Searsby, the campaign manager for Evan McMullin last year, at an event for Evan here in Des Moines during the campaign. Here's an interview with Joel by Jon Ward of Yahoo News on the ways in which centrist French President Emmanuel Marcon's out-of-nowhere landslide election last year may serve as an example for the inevitable bid to elect a rational, moderate third party candidate in 2020.

I have a feeling that it will be Evan McMullin again. But names like John Kasich, the Governor of Ohio, and Sen. Lindsey Graham also keep popping up. Word is that Kasich may challenge President Trump for the 2020 Republican nomination, an endeavor in which I'd wish him well but hold out very, very little hope for his success. I sadly expect that my conviction that the Republicans are dead as a vehicle for rationality and the reuniting of our fractured and divided country to be confirmed by the easy renomination of the most unfit and unqualified preside…