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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Jan Chamberlain's rhetoric is too strong. But the stand she has taken is right.

I do not share the religion of Jan Chamberlain. I don't even pray to the same god. But I can't help but admire the integrity of the woman who quit the Mormon Tabernacle Choir rather than sing at Donald Trump's inauguration.

Ms. Chamberlain, like me, voted for Evan McMullin in November. Like me, she holds no brief for Hillary Clinton or her agenda. But she cannot, as she put it, "throw roses at Hitler."

As I've said before, comparing Trump to Hitler strikes me as harsh. I believe that Trump is a power-hungry narcissist who exhibits disturbing signs of psychopathy, like Hitler. Like Hitler, he has stigmatized  defenseless minorities- Muslims and undocumented aliens, rather than Jews- and made them scapegoats for the nation's troubles. Like Hitler, he has ridden a wave of irrational hatred and emotion to power. Like Hitler's, his agenda foreshadows disaster for the nation he has been chosen to lead.

But he's not going to set up death camps for Musli…

Neither Evan McMullin nor his movement are going away

Evan McMullin has devoted most of his post-college life- even to the point of foregoing marriage and a family- to fighting ISIS and al Qaeda and our nation's deadliest enemies as a clandestine officer for the CIA. He has done so at the risk of his life.

He has seen authoritarianism in action close-up. One of his main jobs overseas was to locate and facilitate the elimination of jihadist warlords. Evan McMullin knows authoritarians.

And when he looks at Donald Trump, what he sees is an authoritarian like the ones he fought overseas. He knows Donald Trump. After leaving the CIA he served as policy director for the Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. He tells about his first encounter with The Donald in that role in this opinion piece he wrote for today's New York Times.

In fact, when Mitt Romney and Tom Coburn and all the others who were recruited to run as a conservative third-party candidate against Trump and Hillary Clinton backed out,  McMulli…

Huzzah! Once again, 45 does something majorly right!

First. he appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and now 45 has- at long last- initiated a sensible space policy, with a plan to promote a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon carried out by private enterprise by 2020.  Afterward, it will be onward to Mars and beyond.

This is a great idea for three reasons. First, private enterprise is the future of space exploration, and as far as I know we will be the first spacefaring nation to put most of its eggs in that basket. Second, it's nice to have eggs! Since the Obama administration canceled the Constellation program to develop the Ares booster and the Orion crew vehicle (though it subsequently reinstated the Orion part of the program), the United States has been twiddling its thumbs while China has taken great leaps toward the moon and other countries- including Russia, India, and Japan- have to various degrees intensified their own space programs. It would be both tragic and foolhardy for the nation which first…