Posted on 07/02/2011 1:31:29 PM PDT by NYer
Frank Furedi, writing for Spiked Online, offers this solid and rather chilling analysis of the passage of "same-sex marriage" legislation in New York State:
From a sociological perspective, the rise of the campaign for gay marriage provides a fascinating insight into the dynamics of the cultural conflicts that prevail in Western society. Indeed, over the past decade the issue of gay marriage has been transformed into a cultural weapon, which explicitly challenges prevailing norms through condemning those who oppose it. This is not so much a call for legal change as a cause, a crusade – and one which endows its supporters with moral superiority while demoting its opponents with the status of moral inferiority.
The campaign for the legalisation of gay marriage does not simply represent a claim for a right; it also represents a demand for the institutionalisation of new moral and cultural values. This attitude was clearly expressed last weekend by Trevor Phillips, chairman of the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission. He argued that Christians, particularly evangelical ones, are more troublesome than Muslims in their attitudes towards mainstream views. In particular he warned that ‘an old-time religion incompatible with modern society’ was driving Christians to clash with mainstream views, especially on gay issues. Incidentally, by ‘mainstream’ he of course means views which he endorses.
Phillips’ choice of words implies that opponents of gay marriage are likely to be motivated by ‘old-time religion’, which is by definition ‘incompatible with modern society’. From this standpoint, criticising or questioning the moral status of gay marriage is a violation of the cultural standards of ‘modern society’. What we have here is the casual affirmation of a double standard: tolerance towards supporters of gay marriage, and intolerance towards opponents of gay marriage.
And so soft totalitarianism slowly hardens into overt discrimination, even oppression:
In the US, questioning the status of gay marriage is often depicted, not simply as an expression of disagreement, but as a direct form of discrimination. The mere expression of opposition towards a particular ritual, in this case gay marriage, is recast as more than a verbal statement – it is itself an act of discrimination, if not outright oppression.
So American journalist Hadley Freeman recently argued in the UK Guardian that gay marriage is not a suitable subject for debate. ‘There are some subjects that should be discussed in shades of grey, with acknowledgment of subtleties and cultural differences’, she wrote. But ‘same-sex marriage is not one of those’. Why? Because ‘there is a right answer’, she hectored, in a censorious tone. The phrase ‘there is a right answer’ is really a demand for the silencing of discussion. And just in case you missed the point, Freeman concluded that opposition to her favourite cause should be seen for what it was: ‘as shocking as racism, as unforgivable as anti-Semitism’.
It is worth noting that the rise of support for gay marriage, the emergence of this elite crusade against sexual heresy, coincides with the cultural devaluation of heterosexual marriage. Today, heterosexual marriage is frequently depicted as a site for domestic violence and child abuse. A review of academic literature on the subject would indicate a preoccupation with the damaging consequences of heterosexual marriage. Terms such as the ‘dark side of the family’ invoke a sense of dread about an institution where dominating men allegedly brutalise their partners and their children.
Do read the entire piece, "The unholy marriage of snobbery and snideyness"
Have you not read the letters of St. Paul?
Yes.
Have you read the actual history of the Roman Empire?
>>> and I know you all know them — Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God! The civiliation put forth by Rome fell.
>>> And Roman power didn’t start to decay in a big way until after they were Christians.
The decline of Rome is more easily and directly traceable to the decision to split the Empire into the Eastern and Western spheres. Renamed Byzantium, the Eastern Roman Empire outlasted the Western Empire by a thousand years.
Look more towards economics and less to religion as both sections were Christian, but the Eastern Empire with its stranglehold on the east-west trade routes had the economic vitality to grow and prosper. Fat treasuries let the state maintain strong armies, keep the peasants satisfied, etc.
Thanks, steve.
Yes indeed.
Now read what really happened to the Roman empire and not your ignorant interpretation of what Paul said.
I assure you the Christians of Constantine’s time would not make the same mistake. They were Christian. They were the Roman Empire. And it was a while before it all fell apart.
Correct. The rampant homosexuality was merely a symptom of the totally rotten moral taboo structure which had aided Rome in becoming an Empire. Sexual degeneracy is a symptom of a decaying dead soul.
Do you think the same thing is happening in the U. S.?
I do.
Placemark.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Definitely happening here. It is part of a long range plan to destroy this nation. IIRC it was even listed by the numbers in the 43 Soviet Congress of the old Soviet Union. It didn’t sudeenly stop with the ending of the Soviet Empire. Look at what is the emperor of Russia!
Oh , yeah, I had this discussion on the FB page of one of my adult nieces last week after the NY decision. She stated she was proud of the NY legislature, and I said I didn't agree, and why. Lordy did I drop a stink bomb! She and another niece and their friends were horrified by my 'intolerance'. I mentioned the intolerance of the homosexual activists who have sued businesses out of existence for simply choosing not to offer their services to homosexuals wanting a wedding.
After several of their diatribes against what I was saying, I calmly mentioned that I hadn't been the one calling names and denigrating people. Frankly, I was surprised that neither of them have 'de-friended' me. I hope that some of my points made some sense to them, but I doubt it. This younger generation seems to have a hyper-sensitivity to 'fairness', without regard to any logic, or without giving any real thought to the consequences of any particular actions or events.
I don’t have to. A quick look at the statistics regarding health & homosexuality tells me all that I need to know... Their values are simply not my values, and their “values” aren’t even good for them either.
I remember back when I was a teen, perhaps the same old trick worked back then. People, especially at that age group, are susceptible to feeling sympathy to those who claim victimization. I used to buy some of the hate crimes mantra, until I had to stop and think about the logic involved.
Why were so many of these people so much against the logic that actually could be helpful, such as gun rights and self-defense? (Plenty of the hate crimes lobby was so denouncing of people owning guns, when in fact, loads of these beatings took as little as a few unarmed assailants)
How serious were some of these hate crimes?
(Plenty mentioned were vandalism, but then again, this could be a phony crime, unless you could seriously prove otherwise.)
How common were they?
Once I actually started pursuing these facts, I realized that plenty of this was more sensationalized than it was real.
The list could go on and on, but the general point made is this...
The idea of somebody being victimized, and somebody else being called in to be the hero, is something that plenty of coming of age people are really impressionable to, and lobbyists know this, and campaign it to their own effect.
Yep.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.