narcisim and rationalizing one’s desires

“the whole issue is fraught with so many inconsistencies, but not among those on the right. Like why is it only Christians who are branded with inane invectives like “homophobia,” when some Muslims advocate the stoning of homosexuals and others threatened the lives of a British MP who voted for gay marriage? Or why liberals, after decades of belittling and devaluing the institution of marriage, suddenly feel that it is essential to the dignity of mankind? And finally, why civil unions don’t suffice to fulfill the needs of those whose human identity is based solely on sex acts, yet still want to be treated as “normal”?”

Lisa Fabrizio has some interesting Thoughts on Gay Marriage. Mead struggles as well. His entry rationalizes his view by a focus on bigotry which has been the exception and not the rule. Another fallacy being used in the debate is that of vox populi – the assertion that everyone is seeing the light and going along with it.

This issue is about being able to assume the mantle of marriage. The ‘rights’ such as in civil unions are insufficient. It is necessary to parade the trappings as well. Libertarians are being abused because this is portrayed as private behavior that should not be subject to governance or social idioms. That is the source of the ‘civil rights’ claim.

Fabrzio’s observation about the Christian persecution on this topic is another indication that the issue is not a simple civil rights thing nor a simple ‘leave me alone’ libertarian thing. It is something deeper and that something is not getting much discussion. That may be because it is the sort of thing subject to denial.

Comments are closed.