Brendan O’Neill nails it at Spiked:
Go here to read the rest.
Homosexuals make up 1.6% of the population and of that only about 10% have bothered to get married in jurisdictions where marriage is possible. The hullabaloo about gay marriage has nothing to do with marriage. What it is, is part of the ongoing attempt of gay activists to compel everyone to adopt a smiley-face attitude towards homosexuality. That is why bakers, florists and photographers have been sued, when there are hordes of bakers, florists and photographers who would be happy to provide services for a gay wedding. The wedding is merely a pretext in order to hammer people for holding on to the view that civilizations have overwhelmingly had about homosexuality: that it is a sexual perversion and in no way is on a par with heterosexuality. That is why gay marriage is not the end but the beginning of the attempt of gay activists to bully those who hold to traditional views as to homosexuality.
Dreher noted awhile back: law of merited impossibility http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-law-of-merited-impossibility/.
Though at times I wonder how much it’s ordinary gas vs those who are using them.
http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2015/04/23/what-does-it-mean-to-be-gay/
I think the whole acceptance thing got started with the “hostile work environment” doctrine which is probably reasonable when applied to women and minorities. One of the gay movement’s great achievements has been equating their struggle with the civil rights movement.
Back in the 70s they described homosexuality as a lifestyle, now they’ve shifted to “”born this way” like skin color and, sadly that has gained traction with the public at large.
In France, we had Christiane Taubira, the Minister of Justice, in an interview with Ouest-France (7/11/2012) say of the proposal for the law of 19 May 2013 (2013-404) that “it is a reform of society and one could even say a reform of civilization, We do not intend to act as if we were only retouching three or four commas in the Civil Code.” [« C’est une réforme de société, et on peut même dire une réforme de civilisation. Nous n’avons pas l’intention de faire comme si nous ne retouchions que trois ou quatre virgules dans le Code Civil »] If that is how the garde des Sceaux, who was responsible for producing the legislation describes it, perhaps we should take her at her word.
Another good post. Thanks.
It’s also about the state finishing what it started with welfare: the destruction of the family.
You will be fundamentally transformed, or else.
Or else you’ll be sent to an island where your savage, pre-Fordian ideas of morality won’t disturb anyone.
Donald R. McClarey on Sunday, May 31, A.D. 2015 at 7:02pm [https://the-american-catholic.com/2015/05/29/popewatch-bear-growls/#comment-266457]:
I have to copy-and-paste something I said about Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner on another site:
“I’m reminded of the observation about communism, that the Soviet media used to make statements that were absurd on their face, because it’s more degrading to a populace to have to repeat blatant untruths. The difference between men and women is basic stuff, and some of the most important stuff in the world to us. It’s a demonstration of political muscle to pressure people into repeating the lie that a man can become a woman.”
This is what natural law means. It’s the things that you don’t need a religion to understand. Life is better than death. Male and female are different. Man is capable of reason. If a person spits on one of those, I have to wonder about him. If a person regularly opposes all of them, I don’t have to wonder any more. I understand that his goal is to overthrow natural law. I can’t cooperate with that.