Interesting. I note that if you could not, and by that I mean 'ethically' and in accord with a recognized and articulated principle already yours, make the case; and you would need that someone make this case for you, that you clearly reveal your position. The question is then thrust back in your difection: Why would you encourage gays to marry with the same legal and social status? I think it is safe to say that for most of man's time so far on the terraqueous planet that at all points the notion of a man marrying a man (or a woman a woman) could only have been seen as perverse. It stands to *reason* but the reason is not reasoned. It if felt. It is (excude the dramatic term) a *metaphysical abomination*.Diebert wrote:A more interesting inquiry would be the topic of legal status and marriage in modern times. How I read David here (and I agree with him) is the question for what reason one would prevent gays to obtain the sense of equality within a certain institution. Any anti-gay activism in this sense would require belief in the "purity" and sanity of the thing one now is suddenly "defending" against corruption.
So actually, the more interesting fact to notice, or the question to ask, is How has it come about that you, for example, do not see it similarly? What is the causation that has led to your position?
In my own view I have to state that among themselves gays can now do whatever they want to do and if conducting a marriage ceremony is their desire, they can do this. They can in fact do what they want to do and in this the liberal cultural allows them most everything. But from the Christian and the religious perspective, of course, they cannot and *should not* (according to them) be given Heavenly Recognition. And at that point there enters in the 'abomination' aspect. I do not lose sleep over this issue myself, but I must say that I do understand their position.
To understand how homosexual values and attitudes have 'conquered' and 'seduced' culture is a far more interesting conversation than the one that would defend the falling away from the ability to have and hold clearly defined values within established hierarchies. To that end, I would suggest a close reading of 'After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s' (this is the manual that describes how it was done and what was done, encapsulations are available to read on-line).
This is one aspect of 'liberalism' and 'hyper-liberalism': It can achieve results with a concerted effort in shifting established cultural values. It does this through vast machinations of culture: tv, movies, talk shows, and a form of social shaming. Without these, it would not be able to carry it out. But now there is a danger: these changes are superficial and not profound. The social body rises up in opposition and will overturn the hyper-liberal attainments.
Do you think that is true?
When one understands the 'acidic 'effects of 'Cultural Marxism' and how, quite quickly, these influences lead to a cultural destruction, it seems to me that philosophes would come forward to articulate these processes, to critique them, and to propose counter-movements to them. What I have always noticed in much of your discourse is something I could only describe from a distance and very generally. I would say it like this but only to try to encapsulate it into a form that has some thrust: You do not seem able to articulate a position for construction. But you have a tremendous amount to say, and you contribute to, processes of coming apart. I mean this in both the metaphorical sense and a real sense of tending to that 'Winter' you seem to almost desire.
Is this unfair and moreover is it inaccurate as a view? Am I right in this or am I wrong?
