“We can disagree on the answers, but can we at least approach the questions without presuming the other is acting in bad faith?”
Unfortunately for you and others (like myself), that is not the way Progressivism works. The nature of Progressivism is to close debate at the earliest feasible opportunity. This is done, mostly, by convincing a large number of people that everyone who did or still does hold the older view is narrow, stupid, and/or evil (bigoted, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc.). There could have been no good reasons for any other model than the one being proposed today, so debate is unnecessary. Never mind if aspects of prior civilizations may have towered above our own.
We have been transitioning to that stage for the last year or two on LGBT issues, with the heat increasing significantly in recent months.
One of the most idiotic things conservatives do is work to negotiate with Progressives, given those terms. This is true whether dealing with LGBT issues, feminism, economic policy, or any other thing. The reason is that every time a conservative compromises or concedes on one issue, a new demand is made that will only weaken him further. Therefore, nothing is ever conserved. The conservative position, rather than moving forward, only dies a long, slow death. It can only definite itself in opposition to today’s Progressive.
Progressivism is incapable of negotiating in good faith, towards some sort of equilibrium possibly acceptable to both sides because it doesn’t operate in that way. Every ‘achievement’ only unleashes the next ‘issue’ of ‘our time’. There is no objective end they are aiming for, other than, perhaps, power. Calls for ‘justice’ are merely the sugary topping to make today’s demand (whatever it happens to be) go down a little more smoothly. There is no debate nor compromise that will satisfy their thirst. There is no state-of-affairs where contentment could be found.
And, lastly, its victories are, in truth, standing on such shaky foundations that its position of power is best maintained via coercive regulation of speech***. Those few who perpetually continue to truly resist Progressivism’s victories must be declared guilty of hate-speech and culturally silenced or mocked or otherwise vilified and ostracized from ‘polite’ society.
***It is not surprising to find that the highest concentration of Progressives, the university, also has some of the most stifling views towards speech. Where Progressivism is most rampant, free (controversial) speech will be most threatened.
[Alessandra adds: this explains why I get banned at so many blogs, obviously the liberals ones, but especially the liberal conservative kind or the conservative hiding a gay mafia kind]
We’re past a tipping point; the State has self-awareness, now, and exists only to feed itself. Our fault is in failing to see that we have nothing left to rely on but each other, in whatever internally organized communities we can muster for self-defense – be that in militias or terrorist cells or town hall meetings or book clubs or blogs or simple, loyal family units. But it’s a mistake to think that the Constitution was ever anything but a beautiful mask placed over the face of Power, which is the only thing that has ever or will ever decide what can or cannot happen in human life.
There are those who consider homosexuality a normal human condition, few bother to research the etymology of the modern day movement for same sex marriage. But the beginnings are important, if you want to understand what is happening today.
The term “homosexual” was never used until the late 1800′s in Germany. Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, a sexologist and homosexual himself, first wrote about same sex activities. His purpose was to normalize it and to force the elimination of laws that made homosexuality illegal. Four years later, another German, Karoly Maria Kertbeny, coined the phrase “homosexuality” in letters to Ulrichs. Yet, homosexuality was still considered a clinical disorder, with the best hope being the elimination of judicial prosecution for those activies.
Add to that the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, who, a devotee of Karl Marx who had his finger on the pulse of movements in Germany, believed that Marxism could be achieved through non-violent means by changing the culture. Part of those changes included the destruction of the family unit and the normalization of abnormal sexual behavior. Gramsci concluded this could be achieved by first destroying the Church, secondly destroying the family unit, third destroying any belief in morals. Once this was achieved, human nation being what it is and humans wanting something to believe in, would turn to the government for all their needs. Gramsci also believed that children would have to be indoctrinated (in public school settings) before the age of 12 because after the age of 12, children were forming their own opinions and would not totally accept Marxism.
Jump to the days of Harvey Milk and the Gay Liberation Front. Perhaps Mr. Happyfeet can tell us when, ever in the history of medical progress, a mental disorder ceased to be a mental disorder simply because some said it no longer existed. Because that is exactly what happened when psychiatrists from the APA were threatened, intimidated, and had death threats lobbed at them from the California Gay Liberation Front. The Gay Liberation Movement adopted the tactics of Marx, knowing that fear (of retaliation) would prove to be greater than a person’s personal, or even professional, opinions. Hence, the threats against the psychiatrists during their San Francisco convention.
But the claim back then was simply that homosexuals merely wanted the rights of “privacy” and used Lawrence v. Texas to push that goal (the truth be known, Lawrence was the result of a gay lovers spat). Once that was achieved, the movement then turned to same sex marriage, although early homosexual activists have subsequently admitted that same sex marriage was never the goal. The goal is to be declared a “privileged” group. Tolerance is not what this is all about. It is about forced acceptance. By any means possible.
One other thing: Mr. Happyfeet links to a Wikipedia article about marriage licenses. It leaves a lot to be desired. Marriage licenses were first granted in the colonies for one reason; the Common Law protection of a child’s right to inheritance as we became a propertied society. It was to avoid litigation when a man had more than one family. I suggest Mr. Happyfeet find a more reliable source than Wikipedia.
#54, Mr. Happyfeet, check your own source which says:
During the early 20th century, the number of women diagnosed with female hysteria declined sharply. Many reasons have been attributed to this decline. Many medical authors claim that the decline was due to laypeople gaining a greater understanding of the psychology behind conversion disorders such as hysteria.
It was a gradual reduction in diagnosis. Not just removed, over night, from the DSM as homosexuality was. If doctors get together and claim that TB is no longer a disease, does that make it true if there was no cure found to eradicate TB? Because that is exactly what happened in the DSM.
Libbtarrds like cheap suited lawyers are only interested in THEMSELVES.
My greatest problem with most liberals is they believe their biases imbue them with great compassion, generosity, tolerance and sophistication. If they at least sensed — or were honest enough to admit — their liberalism was simply predicated on cheap emotions,