Gay marriage really isn’t about gay marriage.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
You have access to a great publication. Use it.
Yup, that's some real good solid, lip-smackin' (wild-eyed, baby-killin, packer/muncher) Journolism right there, pal.
As "social scientists," they saw themselves as designing a structure of government in the spirit of Newton. The ideal Newtonian system is one where the forces manifesting themselves naturally both complement and balance each other off so as to keep the system stable. Like the solar system or a well-designed structure, the checks and balances operate as a whole to keep the system together. Thus, it's most stable when every component is left to move (or exert a force) of its own accord. Meddling with the structure makes it weaker, and more prone to collapse. Thus, meddlers are prone to do harm regardless of their "good intentions." Most likely, they don't know what they're doing.
"You don't like that there wall in the middle of the room? Well, it's structural. You take it down, regardless of how more spacious or prettier it makes the room, you weaken the whole structure and hasten the day when the entire structure collapses. So learn to like it.
"The same thing goes for our solar system. If some cosmic meddler shoves Saturn into Jupiter, every planet's orbit will be perturbed - including ours. Earth would go out of its natural orbit and our planet would be no longer fit to live on.
"So it is with our System of Natural Liberty. Take down the ugly wall that displeases you so, you only hasten its collapse. Join one planet to another out of 'efficiency' and the whole system goes out of kilter and life become unlivable. No go read your Newton and think over what I said."
But, as North further points out, this protective Newtonianism went awry. Not because of Einstein, but because Newton lost his cachet in favour of Charles Darwin. Instead of Newtonian mechanics being the height of thought, Darwinian evolutionism became the height. The "random chance as metaphysics" we read about today was a complementary add-on to the Darwinian worldview.
Darwinism, as "social science," emphasizes process and celebrates successful change. It doesn't matter much about the truth-value or moral excellence of a new "idea:" what matters is its fate. Blithely, Darwinists assume that bad ideas are squelched off early - just as bad mutations die off quickly. So, they further assume, a "change" that sticks has to have some good to it. On the other hand, an idea that's buried has to be bad: it's a "bad mutation" because it died out.
Thus, a Darwinist has the opposite attitude towards meddling than the Newtonian. Instead of the strict lecture above, it's:
"Well, I have my doubts, but the only way to find out is to put it into play and see if it sticks. If you've come up with a good reform, it will win out over the reactionaries and obstructionists because it'll 'take' in the minds of the people.
"On the other hand, it may well flop. If so, best to just put it aside. But remember, you had a fair chance because your idea did get free play in the political environment. If it dies off, don't waste time being bitter. That's just the way evolution works, and disappointment's part of progress too."
Unfortunately, Darwinism has economic growth and technological progress as its capstone selling point. Both forms of progress reinforce the notion that any "change" that breeds true is good. The Newtonians actually had an easier time when plenty was the norm but economic/technological progress was slow.
Those Republicans who want to drop the opposition to gay marriage are showing a Darwinian mindset. Gay marriage has been pegged by them as the latest political mutation that's taken root. Thus, they believe, opposing it means opposing "progress" - i.e., the progress of political evolution. So, they believe, opponents of gay marriage are the (Darwinially proverbial!) "dinosaurs" on the way to extinction. Thus, they conclude, socons should get with the evolutionary program or they'll go politically extinct.
And that's how it's been since Darwinism replaced Newtonianism. Process, change for change's sake, success as its own validator, radical impermanence, etc. It's the same mentality behind the "living Constitution" trope.
Without social conservatism, there is no fiscal conservatism. The folks who say the GOP should reject the Christian view of life and the family, deserve to live under socialism IMHO.
Funny, Ann Coulter was just pounding the table the other day about how Ronald Reagan had supported this and that and the other liberal position, that he wasn't nearly as conservative as conservatives think he was, and so conservatives need to knock off the Ronnie-was-pro-life and other socon worthless jabber, and get on the winning GOP Moderate wagon (that didn't really lose, you only thought it did, because of your social-conservative intellectual shallowness).
Or did I misunderstand her somehow? I don't think I did.
George Washington University, eh? Same place Miss "Fluck" enrolled for the purpose of doing guerrilla theater before Congress under the watchful, manipulative eye of Red Nancy Pelosi (whose creature "Fluck" is).
Same university that covered its crucifixes when a "secret Moslem" barked at them.
I also remember a professor at GWU coming to Judy Woodruff's round table on Election Night 2008 and cracking a joke about the slipping grip on North Carolina politics of "the Dukes of Hazzard", by which he meant non-liberal North Carolinians. Ha, ha, ha, ha, said everyone at the table.
Guess that's what passes for the Zeitgeist at GWU these days. Note to Pope Benedict: Your Holiness can go ahead in good conscience and shut these guys down. They've forgotten what ministering to the People means, much less the Magisterium of the Church.