Since my last post on The Sex Ed Wars, I have received comments that I should sign on to the Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage bandwagon if I was for family values. Let me make this clear - I will NEVER be supporting Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage programs, and this is an article of faith for me.
My position on Sex Ed in schools have been well described in the last article. Outside of that context, I am all for freedom of choice for all adults, as I have said, but I am all for abstinence outside of firm, permanent commitment, and I will support its promotion as a cultural thing amongst adults. I will not stand for making any position, including mine, to be taught as orthodoxy for adult behaviour in schools, and be part of the crowd who is being accused of indoctrinating people, as it would hurt our cultural cause.
What I will also not support in any context is any Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage programs, and that is for absolutely any context. The emphasis on Marriage is simply not compatible with my beliefs, and it would hurt my conscience to say otherwise. It is ironic that it is my long term support for marriage equality that taught me that no moral program should be tied to a government and church sanctioned institution, and that is what marriage is. My standard is for abstinence until permanent commitment, which includes, but is not limited to marriage, and I believe that practically speaking it is as strong a standard as Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage. And to me, that is a major difference, something I will never be able to gloss over.
Doing sociology and philosophy in real time by looking at developments in contemporary Western politics and culture. My mission is to stop the authoritarian 'populist' right and the cultural-systemist left from destroying the West.
Labels
The 90s Model
The 90s model, a model of cultural stances based on the superb arrangement of things in the 1990s, is something that I am proud to support. After all, it's the model of success. I have objective proof of this.
Let's look at how the other models stack up against the 1990s model:
1) The 1950s model. There was a great deal of family values, but the atmosphere was repressive and not conducive to real progress on issues. It was a bad time to be a minority of any kind.
2) The 1960s model. There was real progress on many issues, but this decade was a double edged sword. It proved to be the beginning of tolerance in the West, but also the beginning of decadence in the West.
3) The 1970s model. There were lots of arguments, and society was nearly paralysed in more ways than one. Family values also fell away quickly, for multiple reasons, which is not surprising when everything else good also fell away.
4) The 1980s model. There was too much greed, and not enough awareness paid to emerging problems like HIV/AIDS. One big mistake we should never repeat.
5) The 2000s model. Lots of polarisation, lots of hate everywhere. Popular culture and music became repulsive in many ways. Dangerous drug use soared, and the sexualisation of the media proceeded without brakes. A total disaster.
In fact, these models all serve as warnings for us not to repeat certain mistakes. For example:
1) The 1950s taught us that there should be a bottomline of freedom for individuals, and repressive institutions repressing minorities should not be endorsed for the sake of stability.
2) The 1960s and 70s taught us that some values should be held dear, or they will fall away irreversibly.
3) The 1980s taught us that greed is not good, and emerging problems even when they only affect minorities should be dealt with with care.
4) The 2000s taught us that hate and divisiveness can tear a society apart.
So what is the 90s model? It is a model of tolerance and acceptance for all. But whilst doing that we remain proud of our culture, our family values. In fact, we are not afraid to show it. Allowing freedom for everyone doesn't mean that we need to shut up about our most treasured values, it merely requires that we do not judge people who do not live our lifestyle.
Let's look at how the other models stack up against the 1990s model:
1) The 1950s model. There was a great deal of family values, but the atmosphere was repressive and not conducive to real progress on issues. It was a bad time to be a minority of any kind.
2) The 1960s model. There was real progress on many issues, but this decade was a double edged sword. It proved to be the beginning of tolerance in the West, but also the beginning of decadence in the West.
3) The 1970s model. There were lots of arguments, and society was nearly paralysed in more ways than one. Family values also fell away quickly, for multiple reasons, which is not surprising when everything else good also fell away.
4) The 1980s model. There was too much greed, and not enough awareness paid to emerging problems like HIV/AIDS. One big mistake we should never repeat.
5) The 2000s model. Lots of polarisation, lots of hate everywhere. Popular culture and music became repulsive in many ways. Dangerous drug use soared, and the sexualisation of the media proceeded without brakes. A total disaster.
In fact, these models all serve as warnings for us not to repeat certain mistakes. For example:
1) The 1950s taught us that there should be a bottomline of freedom for individuals, and repressive institutions repressing minorities should not be endorsed for the sake of stability.
2) The 1960s and 70s taught us that some values should be held dear, or they will fall away irreversibly.
3) The 1980s taught us that greed is not good, and emerging problems even when they only affect minorities should be dealt with with care.
4) The 2000s taught us that hate and divisiveness can tear a society apart.
So what is the 90s model? It is a model of tolerance and acceptance for all. But whilst doing that we remain proud of our culture, our family values. In fact, we are not afraid to show it. Allowing freedom for everyone doesn't mean that we need to shut up about our most treasured values, it merely requires that we do not judge people who do not live our lifestyle.
Behind Spring Breakers
Films like the recent Spring Breakers may appeal to those who like sexy scenes, and I won't judge because that's not what I do, but everyone should know what people have to endure in their production. Now it has been reported that Selena Gomez had a mini breakdown when filming Spring Breakers. "I got overwhelmed doing some of the things we were doing and having such an active audience at all times, even though I knew at heart we were super-safe," she said.
Obviously, I won't be watching Spring Breakers. It doesn't fit with my morals.
Obviously, I won't be watching Spring Breakers. It doesn't fit with my morals.
Lady Gaga Stands by Principles
Lady Gaga has reportedly rejected a $1 million offer to perform at the Republican National Convention last year.
It appears that, like her or not, this woman has principles, which is more than can be said of many Hollywood people nowadays. If you really believe in something, you have to put your money where your mouth is. If you believe in marriage equality, you don't do anything to support a party that has such a strong position against it. I think we can all learn from this.
It appears that, like her or not, this woman has principles, which is more than can be said of many Hollywood people nowadays. If you really believe in something, you have to put your money where your mouth is. If you believe in marriage equality, you don't do anything to support a party that has such a strong position against it. I think we can all learn from this.
Maintaining the Integrity of Civil Unions
In some Western countries where civil unions are available, they have become a popular 'lower tier commitment' alternative to marriage. France is a good example where this has occurred. And it is something that I staunchly oppose.
Firstly, civil unions are derived from marriage. It is supposed to serve a similar function, but without the religious baggage. Just as I do not accept the idea of 'open marriages' or '12 month mini marriages', I cannot accept the idea of a marriage-lite institution. Civil unions are a marriage alternative that should be equally as serious and solemn, not a marriage-lite easy way out.
The second, and perhaps even more important reason, is that civil unions serve to be a way gay couples can have equal rights where marriage equality is not yet available. This type of equality does not negate the need for marriage equality, but still is very useful. For places where marriage equality can be readily achieved, and I believe this now includes much of Europe, and US and Australia, we should push for marriage equality. However, this is completely out of the question, and will still be out of the question in 30 years' time, in most of the world. Some of those countries, however, may be ready to adopt civil unions. There is even a movement for civil unions in Japan already, for example! The cheapening of civil unions will not do this cause very well. Moreover, the cheapening of civil unions by heterosexuals in the West can only serve to reinforce the second class status of gay couples in civil unions in other parts of the world, and is something true equality believers should not do.
Civil unions have also been bad mouthed by some marriage equality advocates, and I believe this is unfortunate. From the start civil unions were about equal rights and dignity. The need for equality in the institution of marriage is a separate issue and a separate type of equality issue altogether, and the lack of marriage equality should not be a reason to bad mouth civil unions.
A good guide regarding civil unions is that they must be treated like marriages, seriously and solemnly, and in the spirit of family values. Good examples are those couples who regard marriage as too religious or 'bourgeois' and choose civil unions (or cohabitation) instead, but still uphold the value of commitment.
Firstly, civil unions are derived from marriage. It is supposed to serve a similar function, but without the religious baggage. Just as I do not accept the idea of 'open marriages' or '12 month mini marriages', I cannot accept the idea of a marriage-lite institution. Civil unions are a marriage alternative that should be equally as serious and solemn, not a marriage-lite easy way out.
The second, and perhaps even more important reason, is that civil unions serve to be a way gay couples can have equal rights where marriage equality is not yet available. This type of equality does not negate the need for marriage equality, but still is very useful. For places where marriage equality can be readily achieved, and I believe this now includes much of Europe, and US and Australia, we should push for marriage equality. However, this is completely out of the question, and will still be out of the question in 30 years' time, in most of the world. Some of those countries, however, may be ready to adopt civil unions. There is even a movement for civil unions in Japan already, for example! The cheapening of civil unions will not do this cause very well. Moreover, the cheapening of civil unions by heterosexuals in the West can only serve to reinforce the second class status of gay couples in civil unions in other parts of the world, and is something true equality believers should not do.
Civil unions have also been bad mouthed by some marriage equality advocates, and I believe this is unfortunate. From the start civil unions were about equal rights and dignity. The need for equality in the institution of marriage is a separate issue and a separate type of equality issue altogether, and the lack of marriage equality should not be a reason to bad mouth civil unions.
A good guide regarding civil unions is that they must be treated like marriages, seriously and solemnly, and in the spirit of family values. Good examples are those couples who regard marriage as too religious or 'bourgeois' and choose civil unions (or cohabitation) instead, but still uphold the value of commitment.
From a Music Chart to Seeing Culture At Large - Family Friendly vs Inclusive?
My personal music chart, the Jenienland charts, have been running for over a decade now. Some have praised it for bringing family friendly music to people's attention. However, others have criticised that, on occasion, a not-so-family-friendly (in my opinion and others' opinion) hit comes up. A good example would be last year's How We Do by Rita Ora. Why don't I make it all family friendly, people have asked.
The reason is that I stand for the principle of equal opportunity for all cultures and lifestyle choices, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. I am inclined towards more traditional sounds and cultural themes myself generally, but I do give every song an equal opportunity, and if I like it, I like it. Even if it means Rita Ora going number one.
I extend this approach to other cultural matters too. Culture should be a matter of free market and competition, I believe, and may the best cultures win.
The reason is that I stand for the principle of equal opportunity for all cultures and lifestyle choices, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. I am inclined towards more traditional sounds and cultural themes myself generally, but I do give every song an equal opportunity, and if I like it, I like it. Even if it means Rita Ora going number one.
I extend this approach to other cultural matters too. Culture should be a matter of free market and competition, I believe, and may the best cultures win.
Using 'Partner' for Same Sex Marriages
A while back, Associated Press has reportedly issued a memo stating that generally their writers should use the word 'partner' rather than 'husband' or 'wife' when referring to same sex marriages. They have also been respectful about letting writers use 'husband' or 'wife' for those couples who have used it themselves regularly. This has stirred controversy in some quarters. As a result, AP has now clarified that the terms husband and wife can be used for any married couple.
However, I personally agreed with the AP decision. These are the same standards I use myself anyway. Husband and wife are quite gendered terms, and I think not all married same sex couples will identify with those terms. Using the term partner has quite a tradition in gay culture, and it is respectful. My lesbian friend agrees with me.
In fact, I have decided to use that standard for everyone now, using a non-discrimination principle. All couples are referred to as 'partners' in my articles, unless they self refer to themselves as husband and wife. After all, even heterosexual couples may not abide by these gendered terms in their lived reality.
However, I personally agreed with the AP decision. These are the same standards I use myself anyway. Husband and wife are quite gendered terms, and I think not all married same sex couples will identify with those terms. Using the term partner has quite a tradition in gay culture, and it is respectful. My lesbian friend agrees with me.
In fact, I have decided to use that standard for everyone now, using a non-discrimination principle. All couples are referred to as 'partners' in my articles, unless they self refer to themselves as husband and wife. After all, even heterosexual couples may not abide by these gendered terms in their lived reality.
The Case of Stevie Nicks: Why Drugs are Bad for You
I have often maintained my belief that a lifestyle of alcohol and recreational drug use is no good for anybody's wellbeing, and I am very serious about it. Some have blamed my stance on my conservatism, yet I can clearly tell you that it's a clearly reasoned decision. I don't even support the criminal laws surrounding recreational drug use - I believe they are useless and anti-dignity. But I maintain that it is my duty to point out the pitfalls of a lifestyle of alcohol and recreational drug use.
Here is just one more example.
Fleetwood Mac singer Stevie Nicks recently discussed her past cocaine use on TV. "Save your money, because it's gonna cost you $50,000 to go to rehab... You will have to go or you will die," she told cocaine users out there. Clearly the cocaine use didn't work out too well for her. And I suspect it won't really work out well for anybody else either - after all, that reality is the same for everyone.
Here is just one more example.
Fleetwood Mac singer Stevie Nicks recently discussed her past cocaine use on TV. "Save your money, because it's gonna cost you $50,000 to go to rehab... You will have to go or you will die," she told cocaine users out there. Clearly the cocaine use didn't work out too well for her. And I suspect it won't really work out well for anybody else either - after all, that reality is the same for everyone.
Lindsay Lohan: A Case of Privilege
So Lindsay Lohan avoided jail again recently, but will have to spend 90 days in rehab. Reportedly, she was upset because she would have to spend her birthday in rehab. However, sympathy from out there is very thin - many commentators I have seen are calling for her to be put in jail instead.
Why so much animosity towards her?
I guess the answer is that she has a case of privilege that most people won't have. Regarding the rehab sentence, for example, she can choose to pay an expensive sum to check into a relatively nice place, whilst a poor person facing the same sentence would have to opt for a state run facility that is similar to jail. At least she can be spending her birthday in a place that doesn't look like jail! Also, despite her chaotic lifestyle in recent years, she continues to receive jobs, and the money that comes with it. Many people who choose to live this lifestyle would have been long unemployed. What a privilege!
I guess sections of Hollywood is full of unearned privilege, and many of us are frustrated.
Why so much animosity towards her?
I guess the answer is that she has a case of privilege that most people won't have. Regarding the rehab sentence, for example, she can choose to pay an expensive sum to check into a relatively nice place, whilst a poor person facing the same sentence would have to opt for a state run facility that is similar to jail. At least she can be spending her birthday in a place that doesn't look like jail! Also, despite her chaotic lifestyle in recent years, she continues to receive jobs, and the money that comes with it. Many people who choose to live this lifestyle would have been long unemployed. What a privilege!
I guess sections of Hollywood is full of unearned privilege, and many of us are frustrated.
On Opposing the 'Civil Union Boycott' Movement
Recently I have seen gay couples who have decided to 'hold off everything' until they can legally marry in their home country. This seems to be the case especially in places like parts of Europe and Australia, where marriage equality is not yet reality but might soon be. However, I really don't agree with this. In my opinion, if you are ready to commit, you should commit by having a ceremony and drawing up legal connections. If you are not ready to commit, that's another matter, but if you are ready to commit, you should.
The legislation of marriage equality, although important, is a political affair. Having a formal ceremony and drawing up legal connections as much as possible are personal affairs. If one cannot register a legal marriage yet, there are still ways to live in commitment, in the same spirit that a marriage should be lived in. One can have a formal commitment ceremony and at the same time have either a civil union or registered partnership (where it is available) or at least draw up legal contracts and update their will (where civil unions are not available). One can, in the ceremony, announce to everyone their legal commitments, and their spiritual commitments to stay together to the exclusion of all others and for life. After all, a publicly declared legal and spiritual commitment with the intention that this commitment is exclusive and lifelong is what marriage is about. This is the core of the spirit that should be guiding marriages anyway, and couples interested in marriage can and should also live in this spirit even where legal marriage is unavailable to them.
The legislation of marriage equality, although important, is a political affair. Having a formal ceremony and drawing up legal connections as much as possible are personal affairs. If one cannot register a legal marriage yet, there are still ways to live in commitment, in the same spirit that a marriage should be lived in. One can have a formal commitment ceremony and at the same time have either a civil union or registered partnership (where it is available) or at least draw up legal contracts and update their will (where civil unions are not available). One can, in the ceremony, announce to everyone their legal commitments, and their spiritual commitments to stay together to the exclusion of all others and for life. After all, a publicly declared legal and spiritual commitment with the intention that this commitment is exclusive and lifelong is what marriage is about. This is the core of the spirit that should be guiding marriages anyway, and couples interested in marriage can and should also live in this spirit even where legal marriage is unavailable to them.
Carly Rae Jepsen Hopes to Push for Change
Carly Rae Jepsen recently pulled out of a Boy Scouts of America concert because she did not agree with their stance banning gay members.
My admiration for her just increased five fold. I admire people who stand up for their beliefs, and do their part to push for change.
Can all of you learn anything from this? I'm sure this is good inspiration.
My admiration for her just increased five fold. I admire people who stand up for their beliefs, and do their part to push for change.
Can all of you learn anything from this? I'm sure this is good inspiration.
Katy Perry vs Feminism - Which has a Problem?
There was a lot of controvery when Katy Perry declared that she was not a feminist last year. After all, according to some people, feminism simply means that women should be equal to men. And it's likely that Katy Perry does believe in that, I think.
However, it's more likely that the image of feminism has a problem. For example, a brief search reveals that feminism has been associated with the following:
-women who would like to be homemakers forced out into the workforce
-the despising of traditionally feminine women
-the introduction of unilateral divorce
-man-hating and the supremacy of women over men
-the devaluation of family life
-transphobia, often of the most serious kind
In the ideal world none of these should be in any way related to feminism. Yet they are now, unfortunately. It is a problem that needs to be fixed.
However, it's more likely that the image of feminism has a problem. For example, a brief search reveals that feminism has been associated with the following:
-women who would like to be homemakers forced out into the workforce
-the despising of traditionally feminine women
-the introduction of unilateral divorce
-man-hating and the supremacy of women over men
-the devaluation of family life
-transphobia, often of the most serious kind
In the ideal world none of these should be in any way related to feminism. Yet they are now, unfortunately. It is a problem that needs to be fixed.
Why do people 'hate' Taylor Swift? How about, Back Off Bullies!
Recently, I have seen many people writing about wondering why Taylor Swift has become hated by 'so many people' recently. They offer all kinds of explanation, but it really doesn't do the topic justice. In my opinion, it's a simple phenomenon that unfortunately frequently occurs in schools, although even more sadly some adults seem to never have grown out of it. It's called bullying.
Let's address the accusations first. Is she fake? We don't really know, but we don't know that about anyone else either. Is she bad for feminism? I can't see it, unless feminism means the denial of human reality and the embracing of a 'fantasy' world where girls should never act like girls. It is these people with these weird fantasies of how the world should be that have destroyed the perfectly good aspiration of being housewife for many young women, it is these people who have given feminism a bad name in some circles. Who are they to say that Taylor is bad for feminism then? Does she have too many boyfriends? She has not gone through a marriage or commitment ceremony with any of them, so she's entitled to leave whenever she wants to. Has she been mean to other women? There is no evidence of that, unless you count her songs as 'evidence'. Even more ridiculously, today I came across an article which said that it was her fault that after a year she was still saying how hurt she was at Kanye West's inappropriate behaviour, and how she was perpetuating racist stereotypes - just by telling us how she felt. Needless to say, I won't even dignify this 'argument' with a response.
So there's really no reason to dislike Taylor Swift.
My theory is that Taylor Swift is being collectively bullied, nothing more. We last saw this phenomenon with Britney Spears when she was younger. I know so many people were at least secretly happy to see Britney cry on TV that day in 2006. And I think I know the reason why it has happened to these two and not others.
Hollywood is unfortunately filled with types who unfortunately don't care about being good role models, and promote a lifestyle of endless alcohol, sex and recreational drugs. No amount of accusations will change the image of certain public figures (I don't wish to name names here but you know what type of person I am referring to) because their images are so rotten already. But Taylor Swift has a great image and is therefore different. Some of those people who have launched a verbal attack on Taylor Swift probably at least subconsciously believe they can help destroy her. It's the same kind of perverted satisfaction that comes from deliberately voting for poorly performing contestants on singing shows and seeing the next day that the frontrunner is gone.
In Hollywood, sadly sometimes it pays to be rotten. At least you don't get picked on like Taylor. How sad.
Let's address the accusations first. Is she fake? We don't really know, but we don't know that about anyone else either. Is she bad for feminism? I can't see it, unless feminism means the denial of human reality and the embracing of a 'fantasy' world where girls should never act like girls. It is these people with these weird fantasies of how the world should be that have destroyed the perfectly good aspiration of being housewife for many young women, it is these people who have given feminism a bad name in some circles. Who are they to say that Taylor is bad for feminism then? Does she have too many boyfriends? She has not gone through a marriage or commitment ceremony with any of them, so she's entitled to leave whenever she wants to. Has she been mean to other women? There is no evidence of that, unless you count her songs as 'evidence'. Even more ridiculously, today I came across an article which said that it was her fault that after a year she was still saying how hurt she was at Kanye West's inappropriate behaviour, and how she was perpetuating racist stereotypes - just by telling us how she felt. Needless to say, I won't even dignify this 'argument' with a response.
So there's really no reason to dislike Taylor Swift.
My theory is that Taylor Swift is being collectively bullied, nothing more. We last saw this phenomenon with Britney Spears when she was younger. I know so many people were at least secretly happy to see Britney cry on TV that day in 2006. And I think I know the reason why it has happened to these two and not others.
Hollywood is unfortunately filled with types who unfortunately don't care about being good role models, and promote a lifestyle of endless alcohol, sex and recreational drugs. No amount of accusations will change the image of certain public figures (I don't wish to name names here but you know what type of person I am referring to) because their images are so rotten already. But Taylor Swift has a great image and is therefore different. Some of those people who have launched a verbal attack on Taylor Swift probably at least subconsciously believe they can help destroy her. It's the same kind of perverted satisfaction that comes from deliberately voting for poorly performing contestants on singing shows and seeing the next day that the frontrunner is gone.
In Hollywood, sadly sometimes it pays to be rotten. At least you don't get picked on like Taylor. How sad.
Justin Bieber Earns More Than $6,000 per Hour
It has recently been reported that Justin Bieber earned an estimated $55 million last year, or more than $6,000 per hour.
This is really wrong. I have nothing against Justin Bieber himself, but nobody deserves to earn that much. It is just testament to how unequal our society is and what direction we are heading in. This insanity must stop.
This is really wrong. I have nothing against Justin Bieber himself, but nobody deserves to earn that much. It is just testament to how unequal our society is and what direction we are heading in. This insanity must stop.
10 Years of Marriage Equality Support Series: Marriage, Procreation and Same Sex Marriages: Part 2
Regarding the argument over marriage, procreation and same sex marriages, I sometimes cannot help but wonder if the people arguing on this basis against same sex marriages are really angry at something else, and are unfortunately taking their anger out on marriage equality. In what I believe to be an unfortunate development, many people in society have really decided that marriage shouldn't be about procreation and family but should be about only love. This, however, started out in heterosexual society and has nothing to do with marriage equality.
A common theme around opposition to same sex marriages state that it is a redefinition of marriage, and the last time that happened was with no fault divorce, which has brought on the consequence of broken families. From this line or argument, it is not hard to infer that at least some of the opposition to marriage equality is based on a fear that marriage will be further taken to be not about procreation and family. However, one can support marriage equality in the same way they support infertile couples being able to enter into marriage, without taking away from the belief that marriage is about procreation, unless one is an ideological purist, which most of us are not and should not be in relation to social matters. I, for example, am principally opposed to the idea of unilateral divorce. I personally am only not opposed to unilateral no fault divorce as law now because I respect the majority opinion on this. I see unilateral divorce as undermining the family, and I am not going to apologize for this. No fault divorce is applied across the spectrum, and represents a core change in the meaning of marriage, perhaps the most radical change ever. Marriage equality, on the other hand, is about extending some decency and equality to a minority group, and does not represent a core change to marriage as I outlined previously in Part 1.
There is indeed a case to be made for re-opening the discussion of divorce. It won't be popular, and it sure is not one of my priorities to help it along at the moment, but there are indeed merits to re-opening this discussion. There is surely widespread discomfort with the consequences of no fault divorce, and I believe only a frank discussion will solve the problem. But blaming everything wrong with no fault divorce on 'gay marriage' is the coward's way out. It is unfortunately too often cowards who hate the consequences of no fault divorce on society yet would not discuss that in fear of backlash, who have used 'gay marriage' as a surrogate thing to attack instead. We must not give credit to these cowards, cowards who do not even dare to challenge what they really believe is wrong but instead use an oppressed minority as a scapegoat.
A common theme around opposition to same sex marriages state that it is a redefinition of marriage, and the last time that happened was with no fault divorce, which has brought on the consequence of broken families. From this line or argument, it is not hard to infer that at least some of the opposition to marriage equality is based on a fear that marriage will be further taken to be not about procreation and family. However, one can support marriage equality in the same way they support infertile couples being able to enter into marriage, without taking away from the belief that marriage is about procreation, unless one is an ideological purist, which most of us are not and should not be in relation to social matters. I, for example, am principally opposed to the idea of unilateral divorce. I personally am only not opposed to unilateral no fault divorce as law now because I respect the majority opinion on this. I see unilateral divorce as undermining the family, and I am not going to apologize for this. No fault divorce is applied across the spectrum, and represents a core change in the meaning of marriage, perhaps the most radical change ever. Marriage equality, on the other hand, is about extending some decency and equality to a minority group, and does not represent a core change to marriage as I outlined previously in Part 1.
There is indeed a case to be made for re-opening the discussion of divorce. It won't be popular, and it sure is not one of my priorities to help it along at the moment, but there are indeed merits to re-opening this discussion. There is surely widespread discomfort with the consequences of no fault divorce, and I believe only a frank discussion will solve the problem. But blaming everything wrong with no fault divorce on 'gay marriage' is the coward's way out. It is unfortunately too often cowards who hate the consequences of no fault divorce on society yet would not discuss that in fear of backlash, who have used 'gay marriage' as a surrogate thing to attack instead. We must not give credit to these cowards, cowards who do not even dare to challenge what they really believe is wrong but instead use an oppressed minority as a scapegoat.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
-
Religious freedom has recently become the favourite cause of those opposed to LGBT rights, in the US and other Western countries. Many comme...
-
It's certainly not just arguing over ideology and philosophy Tara: I'm actually very frustrated that the left seems to keep misunder...
-
We need to argue for utilitarianism and organicism against the anti-freedom ideologies One thing that I have repeatedly emphasized and explo...
