Fieler really nails it here: The entire LGBT movement, which has enjoyed astonishing "political success" over the past dozen years or so, rests entirely on a principle, albeit a profoundly distorted one — i.e., that one's objective, physical biology is optional once a human can "create himself" by reimagining himself in any way he wants to. Darwin is completely irrelevant. And creator God does not exist. And yet,
Americans still believe that a man, even a man who thinks he is a woman, is still a man. A principled argument would not only reiterate this obvious point but would also point out the shared principle of biological irrelevance that stretches across all the LGBT constituents.... Having already repeatedly affirmed that our rights come from God, not the state, Republicans are starting in the right place. They need only add the logical corollary that if we recast ourselves in a way that denies either our human nature or our Creator, we undermine the very basis of the rights we cherish and defend.Well, I just have to agree with that. And I don't think the subject matter is at all irrelevant. In fact, it is extremely relevant in my family life; for my sister is gay, and has a long-time partner, J.
Recently, I managed to offend J by simply observing the difficulty I have in understanding how a person can come up with a self-image/self-concept that is totally at odds with the facts of that person's biology. To me, this was simply an unadorned statement of fact. But I grievously offended J. Instantly, I wrote to her to apologize, lamely stating that I had always regarded her essentially, as a person, not as a member of a group.
If anyone out there thinks this subject matter is just about politics, I beg to differ. This is about the state of American culture, which always precedes American politics....
It seems to me American culture increasingly is losing its grip on Reality. If "your sexual desire, not your biology, constitutes your identity," certain curious effects logically flow from such a premise. For one thing, under this understanding, it appears that there is a soul-like entity that can activate itself without reference to a physical body. But this idea does not comport well with either materialist doctrine or Darwinian evolution. For another, if one is free to define oneself as a person on the gratuitous basis of one's sexual longings, then I don't see any limit on human capriciousness — certainly there is no basis for universal moral sanction under such conditions.
Thanks for the great post, EveningStar!
GROINists.. is an ideological concept..
Many think with their GROIN... or somebody Else’s..
When speaking of LOVE.. many minds go directly to the groin..
Like; dogs smelling behinds..
Can’t tell by looking at someone either.. they could be a Groinist..
OK sometimes you can tell like with gays.. if you know their gay..
Gay, straight, man, woman, kid, adult.. pretty, ugly.. in-between..
No doubt everyone knows a few Groinists.. maybe they are one themselves..
What do they identify with in the groin?... {TILT to much information}
The current Liberal (nee Progressive) prevailing notion is that politics can change (therefore mandate) culture attitudes. A great deal of upheaval, possibly the death of Western Civilization, will need occur before this gross error is recognized.
Thanks for keeping me in the loop. Much appreciated.