My Tuesday collection was turning in Rod Dreher’s greatest weekend hits, many of which were on polygamy, homosexuality, same-sex marriage or, finally, the pornification of society. So I pulled them off for separate treatment.
- On not carrying things to their logical conclusions
- A few thoughts on bigotry
- Something that may soon be utterly forgotten
One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion.
(Scalia, dissenting, in Lawrence v. Texas) It’s not just snark from me to repeat that. It’s a point I’ve been making about the logic of judicial decisions starting Saturday, when I first reported on the Utah polygamy decision. I forgot that Scalia had said it so succinctly. (H/T Rod Dreher)
It may be worth it, in the end, to permit polygamy — as our courts eventually will — for the sake of establishing same-sex marriage rights. Let us note, though, that the idea that one would lead to the other was strenuously denied by same-sex marriage proponents, and still is today. Don’t you believe it. Here’s [Jonathan S.] Tobin:
All that is needed is a little candor on this issue on the part of critics of the dwindling band of opponents of gay marriage. The floodgates have been opened, and if that makes some of us uncomfortable, especially those who understandably view polygamy as synonymous with the exploitation of women, then we should be honest enough to acknowledge that it is merely part of the price that had to be paid to give gays the same right to marry afforded to other citizens.
Good luck with that. Honesty would impede gaining the results advocates want.
(Dreher again, hyperlink added)
When contemporary people make sweeping assertions like Paul Raushenbush’s — that the only reason anybody could oppose gay marriage is bigotry — they reveal themselves to be close-minded and ignorant of history, philosophy, and theology. One doesn’t expect modern people to agree with the classical Christian way of thinking about sexuality and teleology. They don’t accept it for heterosexuals, certainly, and the main reason the taboo against homosexuality fell so quickly is because gays made straights confront the fact that all gays were asking for was a more consistent application of the post-Sexual Revolution standards to themselves. While one doesn’t expect agreement from moderns like Raushenbush, one does expect more intelligence and charity than people like Raushenbush show to their opponents.
Yes, Rod Dreher again. This time, he’s discussing a column by Brandon Ambrosino in the Atlantic, Being Against Gay Marriage Doesn’t Make You a Homophobe. Ambrosino is an interesting gay writer, which is to say that he either swims against the gay stream (as he does) or makes arguments from surprising and illuminating perspectives (which I’m not so sure about).
This seems an apt opportunity to quote a few Chesteron aphorisms:
- It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.
- A man . . . is only a bigot if he cannot understand that his dogma is a dogma, even if it is true.
May I suggest that there are many bigots on the progressive and tolerant side of this issue?
I especially worry about the kind of men who will court my daughter, given the pornification of our culture. Will they respect her? Do they even know what it means to respect a woman?
(Rod Dreher, reflecting on Ross Douthat’s suggestion that parents of girls may become more conservative. Emphasis added.)
* * * * *
“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 