(Part One is here : It's Precurser is Here)
One or two of you might think that this is a response to your article posted right here on this site. You'd be correct! Ab-so-friggin-lutely correct!
(are we going to hafta make veiled references to who the target audience of our articles are to from now on? We wouldn't want those people at [the unmentionable station] to get offended because they think we're talking about them. Oh wait, too late! This probably offended them... doh!)
Since this is a continuation of an article in reference to one of my articles, I'll skip the description of my beliefs and jump straight into the apologetics.
Despite the fact that George W. Bush has bastardized the term, I am somewhat of a "Compassionate Conservative." This is how I identify with my belief that abortion is wrong.
Many people who read these pages and listen to my words know that I feel very strongly about this issue mostly because I'm adopted myself, and as an adoptee, I'm very grateful my birth-mother decided not to abort me (as it was legal, and a viable option in 1979).
I say I'm grateful, but then some days ....
But seriously, the topic of abortion cannot be discussed and the option of adoption not be brought into it. Most if not almost all cases of where abortion is used as a form of birth control (one of the more despicable reasons to kill an unborn child, in my opinion), adoption is a much more desirable and viable option. The waiting lists for parents in America who want to adopt infants and are unable due to procreation problems is miles longer than number of available infants. American parents have been known to even go overseas to adopt to aleviate long waiting lines.
With regards to the gay debate, my aim was not to make an iron-clad statistical case against homosexual marriage (although it would not be a hard case to make given the opposition's factual basis for their position), but merely to point out that homosexuality isn't the life affirming condition it is painted out to be.
Many things in this world seperate people from the norm, some of them genetic, some of them learned behavioral, and they aren't all considered a life affirming condition, and are treated as something not to be hated for but to be relieved from. Given that preference plays a part in the lifestyle of a homosexual (preference to practice or not to practice their desires, be they optional or not to have the desires in the first place), it is quite a reach to offer what is barely 2% of the population a definition that retracts thousands of years of established dogmatic principal.
At the very least, if the issue is to be pushed to it's logical conclusion, the very best that the conservative viewpoint has to offer deserves to be listened to without being ridiculed or laughed at. Just because your sensibilities are offended when someone says something doesn't mean those words don't have merit. No one here is advocating for the death of all homosexuals. No one here is denying them the rights that heterosexuals have. What conservatives are protesting is their right to re-define what society considers a marriage.
To the argument that marriage and legitimacy being the means of ending the "amoral" lifestyle of the gay community, I'd like a historical example of when the concept of appeasement ever worked to satisfy a hungry movement for social change.
Certainly the civil rights movement achieved good pursuing basic civil rights for African Americans, but it did nothing past the 60s and the 70s to empower and legitimize the black community as a whole. As a minority, they are still one of the most "oppressed" communities. Is it because the white man is still keeping them down? Or is it that they are unable to rise up and become successful due to their culture of entitlement?
I'm getting off track here and not working well to prove a point, so let me get back to it... there is a perversive culture that surrounds a lot of the homosexual community and various homosexual subcultures, and as long as we are speaking in terms of bringing them out of the darkness into legitimacy, I think it needs to be acknowleged that there are things that are uncomfortable to talk about pervasive to the gay community. Things like NAMBLA being fairly well represented in many Gay Pride parades. Things like the pro-active recruiting drives many lesbian activism organisation use to target youth.
We should be aware of what we are legitimising, and realise the consequences of acquiesing to a very small segment of societies wishes in order to simply avoid political controversy. There is a slippery slope involved, and I'm not saying we should not go down it, but we should at least wear rubber golashes so as not to fall (you know, cause they have the grippy things on it. Sorry, the metaphor well ran dry a while back, that's the best I can do).
/rizzn
No comments:
Post a Comment