Lengthy argument, lengthy rebuttal. Damning Detroit. What works.
Re: Jim Hlavac’s letter (under “Gay by Constitution”) in Reader Mail’s The Blame Shame:
Jim Hlavac’s extended diatribe demonstrates one aspect of
gay ”progress” — the “Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name”
has morphed into the “Love That Won’t Shut Up.”
— Stuart Koehl
Falls Church, Virginia
Jim Hlavac has written a long and rambling letter which weaves in and out with a long list of questions the purpose of which is to render paralysis to his opponents by the sheer weight of the unanswerable. To top it all off, Mr. Hlavac subtly has set himself up as judge, jury and prosecutor in that the only answers he deems valid are those that satisfy his sense of reason. His list of questions is too long to deal with in detail; but I’ll confine myself to a few points.
1.) MARRIAGE. Strictly speaking, marriage is not a right in the sense we normal speak of rights nor is marriage a creation of the state. Instead, marriage is a “pre-existing institution.” That is, marriage is a social/religious bond recognized and supported within and across human societies according to their particular traditions and customs. Marriage existed before any one particular state and will exist long after the demise of any particular state. As such, the State’s authority in marriage is exceptionally limited. For the state to redefine and remake marriage according to its own lights or purposes, such encroachment can be only done by a degree of coercive power no state should ever have. Socially recognized marriage between two homosexuals has never been sanctioned anywhere at anytime until the present day and even then only in a select few locations. Even these few instances only came about by judicial fiat. The plain fact is that for gay marriage to exist it could only exist as a creation of the state.
2.) CONSTITUTION RIGHTS AND NATURE AS DEFAULT Mr. Hlavac writes: “If gays are created by our Creator, then surely we are entitled to certain inalienable rights, regardless of others’ repugnance of the acts in bed, on which so many seem to be fixated. And we should be free from all legal penalty and prohibition.” This begs the question and (as they say) assumes facts not in evidence. The mere existence of homosexuals does not by necessity indicate homosexuality exists by the intentionality of God.
The assertion is made that since homosexuality exists to the degree that it does it is within all reasonable definitions of “natural.” As such, homosexuality is a part of God’s creation which He pronounced was “good.” It is additionally claimed that, when the “gay gene” is finally discovered, the divine blessing and intentional creation of homosexuality will definitively confirmed. There are a number of objections. Elements in this line of reasoning do not necessarily mean what the arguer thinks they mean.
The most apparent problem comes from observation. There is too much in the “created” world that are not good and we are loath to say are as God willed. Is it God’s will that so many children are born deformed? Does God “bless” a child by giving him spina bifida? Is it God’s will that some children will be stricken with cerebral palsy? Is it God’s will that young boys and girls will have genetic diseases that will kill them before they reach adulthood?
There is also a theological complication. Most Christians take the doctrine of “The Fall” seriously. In short, Adam’s sin and fall from grace brought death and alienation from God into the world. The Fall not only broke Adam. The Fall broke and torn asunder all of creation. Nothing is as it was meant to be. lements are not where they are supposed to be. Thus it would remain an open question whether some undiscovered “gay gene” many feel so confident is there is part of the Lord’s plan or shrapnel from a broken world. Note. None of the above actually says anything about God’s intention or non-intention for homosexuality in His creation. It is a demonstration that as a form of argument “proof from existence” does not work.
IS THERE REALLY SUCH A “THING.” The fundamental problem is one that is passed over much too often. When we call a man or a woman a homosexual, we all know what we mean. But is there really a different type of human being whose fundamental nature mind, bone and sinew differs from those of their heterosexual friends and neighbors? We readily recognize that there are men and women who engage in homosexual acts. But does this single behavioral trait justify the notion of a “third or fourth sex.” Most homosexuals believe they are “organically”, genuinely different from heterosexual men and women body and soul. But is this actually the case? There is no objective scrape of evidence for this. We hear about scientists here and there finding a physiological distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Yet either the sample population is too small or the findings cannot be replicated.
To tell you the truth, I’d rather be on the other side of this
question. The trouble is all the arguments put forth are
found wanting. I have to be intellectually honest with
myself and be forthcoming that I remain unconvinced and cannot
with any integrity “get there.” Perhaps the day will come
for so many of us will be compelled to think
otherwise. Until then, peace on your house. You still
remain and will always remain a part of the moral community we
— Mike Dooley
KILLING THE BIG THREE
Re: Eric Peters’s Fixing GM in Three Easy Steps:
Eric Peters issues a positively brilliant commentary on how to fix General Motors (and quite frankly, the other Big 3 automakers to boot).
It is an extraordinary piece to behold. I am taken, in particular, with his first point about putting different badges on essentially the same car, with very slight differences. The usual gang of idiots have been pulling this stuff for over 30 years and I have an example that illustrates it quite well.
It is 1976, my wife is expecting our first child, and I’m in need of a new car. We go to several dealerships on the West Side of Cleveland, Ohio (where we both grew up) to check out a new family car. We stop at one operation to look at a Dodge Aspen, but my wife believes there’s not enough leg room in the back of even the 4-door model. We go to another dealership around the corner from our house and look at a Plymouth Volare. Turns out it’s the same car as the Aspen, but my wife likes it better. We go to a third place (part of a huge local family-run dealership chain that’s been around for what seems to be a millenia) and find the same car. Only this one has the front end of a Volare, the Volare name badge on one side, the Aspen name badge on the other, and the back end of an Aspen. A mistake? Done on purpose? Or just more stupidity from Detroit? We just left that dealership shaking our heads (I had no intention of buying there anyway as I’ve never cared for their high-pressure salemanship) and went back to dealership #2 and bought the Volare.
Within 3 years, the top of both front fenders had rusted through (bad design — a trough of some sort was formed in the production of the fender and water spray from below had collected in it, rotting out the metal) and several other holes appeared in the rear fenders. In 1980, I bought a basic Toyota Corolla, wrung 206,000+ miles out of it, and would probably still be driving it today if I hadn’t wanted something with a few more items like AC, stereo-FM-AM-casette and a rear defogger. Since then I’ve had 3 other Corollas, 2 Camrys and a Rav. The 2001 Camry and 2002 RAV have cracked the 100,000 mile mark, not a speck of rust on the, still run like the first time, and don’t have to compete with rebadged versions offered by Toyota. I’ve passed three of the cars down to our two daughters and they’ve made great use of them, eventually using them as excellent trade-ins on other vehicles.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?