Monday, January 28, 2013

Tolerance Police bust the Boy Scouts


Ze vorzez of Toleranze are poised vonce again to claim victory in zeir battle to eliminate beliefz zat differ from zeir own.

Apparently succumbing to increasing pressure from the champions of Diversity (who will brook no opinion but their own) the Boy Scouts of America have apparently got hauled into the Politically Correct Ministry of Love a few too many times for their taste. It now appears poised to change its policy on accepting members--and scoutmasters--who are not "morally straight" (part of the scouting oath).

Let us all repeat together:


DIVERSITY IS UNIFORMITY
EQUALITY IS FAVORITISM
TOLERANCE IS BIGOTRY

34 comments:

KyCobb said...

And Martin's hypocrisy is hypocritical.

Lee said...

You can always count on a liberal institution to stand tall in a stiff wind. Conservative institutions, not so much. They seem to figure that if they give in a little and compromise, that will relieve the pressure. It never does; all it does is encourage the Vandals and dishearten the defenders.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Its over, and you've lost. The younger generation overwhelming favor equal rights for LGBT people; all that's left is waiting for the homophobes to die of old age. I would be surprised if a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality is still a plank in the GOP platform in 2016.

Martin Cothran said...

Lee,

In general, you are right. But the Catholic Church isn't going anywhere on this one (remember: marriage is a sacrament).

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

You mean like it was was all over on abortion in 1973? I guess it's easy for someone without a basic historical perspective to say things like that. It assumes history moves in one direction only, when, in fact, it is constantly changing. In a generation or two it's entirely likely that the "diversity" (Read: "uniformity") ideologies of the early 21st century will look silly in historical retrospect.

The only thing that remains the same from century to century are the beliefs of those who adhere to an eternal standard. While all the others pass, those never go away.

Lee said...

KyCobb, remove the question-begging epithets from your statement, and what you have left wouldn't line a parakeet cage.

Why think, when you can label, eh?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

Homophobia isn't going to be one of those eternal standards anymore than racism was. I don't know what else you can say to the next generation to try to convince them to discriminate against LBGT people that you haven't already said. BTW 70% of Americans don't want Roe v. Wade reversed, so that's pretty much over as well.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

I have thought, and I think the defense of marriage amendment is such a political loser that it won't even be in the GOP platform in 2016. The GOP knows that it can't keep demonizing people like gays and immigrants and still win national elections.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Demonizing people? Like calling them "homophobes"? It cracks me up how people pushing this are always accusing their opponents of hate and they're the ones using all the epithets.

Lee said...

> In general, you are right. But the Catholic Church isn't going anywhere on this one (remember: marriage is a sacrament).

That's such a shame, Martin. What the Catholic Church needs to do is to populate the ranks of its clergy with women (preferably lesbian) priests and water down the dogma with some New Age influence.

Why, there is a female Episcopal priest who is also a Muslim, so you can be extra-special inclusive. I hear this lady is looking for a gig...

http://www.christianpost.com/news/episcopal-priest-defrocked-after-refusing-to-recant-muslim-faith-37847/

The surprise here, for me at least, is that the Episcopal Church did something about it. Why close the gate after the horses have already gotten out?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

Just being honest. If you want the state to use its political power to discriminate against LGBT people because if they have equal rights they will somehow Destroy America, I can't think of a more accurate term.

Lee,

"What the Catholic Church needs to do is to populate the ranks of its clergy with women (preferably lesbian) priests"

Might be preferable to the pedophiles and their enablers that have populated the ranks of Catholic clergy.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

I appreciate your honesty in the hurling of epithets. It's so refreshing. That's just what we need more of: good, honest hate speech.

The word "homophobia" is a psychological term with a very specific meaning. Are you making a diagnosis here on my blog? And if so, are you qualified to make it?

Or is it merely an epithet culled from the large and ever-expanding lexicon of PC Devil words?

Be honest.

Lee said...

> Might be preferable to the pedophiles and their enablers that have populated the ranks of Catholic clergy.

That's what they get for recruiting from LA public schools.

KyCobb said...

I'm using it colloquially, Martin, as I am a lawyer, so I'm not competant to diagnose anyone's mental state. I can however, recognize how irrational it is to fear that giving LGBT people equal rights will bring the downfall of civilization. We don't hesitate today to call people who have the same unfounded fears about giving equal rights to african-americans racists.

Lee said...

In law school, do they teach that any analogy will work?

I don't suppose you have to make good arguments. Just good enough for the juries you select.

KyCobb said...

I'm not making a legal argument Lee. Irrational fears are irrational, whether they are about gays or african-americans.

Lee said...

> I'm not making a legal argument Lee. Irrational fears are irrational, whether they are about gays or african-americans.

Labeling it fear doesn't make it fear. "Homophobia"? I can't flip a switch on your brain and make you quit using question-begging epithets.

Why do you think it's evident, based on my anti-SMS stance, that I fear gays? Or is that simply above debate, yea verily, because KyCobb hath decreed it so. Wave the magic scepter. Burn the incense. Yea verily.

Not asking you to make a legal argument here. A rational one will suffice.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

I don't care whether your emotional state is fear, loathing, contempt or whatever. The emotion you feel which causes you to rationalize discrimination isn't as important as the fact that you support discrimination.

Lee said...

> I don't care whether your emotional state is fear, loathing, contempt or whatever.

Well, Ky, that's very unconvincing, because you keep bringing it up. I see you've tried to cover all the possibilities. Fear. Loathing. Contempt. Hmmm. You forgot apoplexia. I bet I could think of some others, too.

I might enjoy being a liberal, actually. You never have to make a case for anything, just think of rotten things to call anyone who disagrees with you on any issue and parade about in a snit about how wretchedly evil he is, and talk about how much better off the world will be when he dies.

Nobody can have an honest disagreement with a liberal, after all. It has to be classified as a character disorder. You've made that abundantly clear.

I guess I'm just lucky you're willing to share the planet with me. Thanks.

Now that you're done demonizing me, you can return to your regular programming now, complaining about how the right wing demonizes people.

Hey! Demonic glee! You forgot one!

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Do you support legalizing polygamy?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"Nobody can have an honest disagreement with a liberal, after all. It has to be classified as a character disorder. You've made that abundantly clear."

Right Lee, and you never demonize liberals on the issue of marriage equality, except when you do. Remember writing this:

"Actually, I think that the destruction of marriage as an institution is part of what makes gay marriage so attractive to liberals. The family is one of the remaining bulwarks against the overweening power of the liberal state. If something impedes the liberal agenda, it needs to die."

So what am I to conclude when you can only justify your opposition to same-sex marriage with a bizarre conspiracy theory about those evil liberals?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

I don't think polygamy is good for society, so I would not vote to legalize it. There are rational reasons to prohibit polygamy, and those opposed to same-sex marriage were famously unable to articulate even one rational basis for opposing marriage equality in the Prop 8 case. Widespread polygamy can create a shortage of women, which is destabilizing to society, second and subsequent marriages can interfere with the legitimate expectations of the first wife and her children to emotional and financial support of her husband. There also is no equal protection argument form polygamy, since noone is denied the opportunity to be married to someone they are sexually compatible with.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

There are plenty of rational reasons that have been offered against same-sex marriage. Anthony Esolen has given ten of them in his Touchstone Magazine articles: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-04-028-f
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-05-025-f

And Robert P. George et al. have offered their own in "What is Marriage?": http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

You can say you don't agree with their arguments, but to say they haven't been offered is simple ignorance.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Since you think something not being good for society is a sufficient reason for making it illegal, would you also say that divorce and out-of-wedlock birth should also be illegal?

Lee said...

KyCobb,

>> "Actually, I think that the destruction of marriage as an institution is part of what makes gay marriage so attractive to liberals. The family is one of the remaining bulwarks against the overweening power of the liberal state. If something impedes the liberal agenda, it needs to die."

Interesting that you select a passage I wrote that doesn't nothing at all to demonize anyone as an example of me demonizing someone.

Yes, I believe liberals exist to tear down institutions. And I'm not very happy about their successes in most cases. But where did I get personal? Where did I say it reflects on their character?

It follows directly from leftist thought, though. Conservatives and liberals alike agree that man is not perfect. But they have different reasons why that is so. Conservatives believe it is in man's nature to fall short of goodness, and it is our institutions that hold things together. Liberals believe the opposite, that man is basically good and the institutions are holding him back. So the institutions must go, to pave the way to the Greater Day.

It is well-known to anyone who has studied communism that tearing down the societal constraints of all sorts, including church and family, has a venerable history in left-wing thought.

But villifying people who disagree with you seems to be your entire schtick.

Can anyone be a conservative, disagree with you on gay marriage, and still be a good person?

From your answers here, I'd say the answer is 'no'.

Lee said...

> Since you think something not being good for society is a sufficient reason for making it illegal, would you also say that divorce and out-of-wedlock birth should also be illegal?

Taken on those terms, Martin, I would say the left wing is being arbitrary.

We want policy that is good for society, trade-offs be damned -- that is, until we want policy that is good for the individual, trade-offs be damned.

So we'll keep the ban on polygamy because a liberal speculates that it is bad for society. But if SSM turns out to be bad for society, as conservatives have speculated, well, too bad, because it's the individual's goals that matter, not society's, and quit being a bigot, you bigot.

There is, however, a root motive that underlies the whole proceeding, one that is not arbitray and does not contradict itself.

That's the left wing's obsession with making government the source of all things, the source of all power and authority, the fountain through which all blessings flow.

Where there are competing institutions, lesser institutions, than mighty government, there will be some power still vested in them. Little by little, that power must be scraped away and fed to government. The church, the family, tradition, the Constitution... all stand in the way.

This talk of polygamy is unhelpful to that cause. It's way too retro (like, Abrahamic old-school) to appeal to the progressives.

KyCobb said...

Right Lee, you wrote that liberals are plotting to destroy marriage to create an all-powerful state and want to kill anything that gets in their way, but you didn't demonize them. IOW, liberals are Nazis, but don't take it personally!

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"Since you think something not being good for society is a sufficient reason for making it illegal, would you also say that divorce and out-of-wedlock birth should also be illegal?"

Understand that there is a difference between saying that something could be made illegal and something should be illegal. In our republic in which we have government be elected representatives, the people ultimately decide what should be legal or illegal, within constitutional restraints. So if the people agreed that divorce is a net negative for society, then it could be made illegal. Making out-of-wedlock births illegal would violate the constitution since people have a privacy right to make their own reproductive decisions.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

I will address Esolen's arguments upstairs, and look into Robert George's.

Lee said...

> Right Lee, you wrote that liberals are plotting to destroy marriage to create an all-powerful state and want to kill anything that gets in their way, but you didn't demonize them. IOW, liberals are Nazis, but don't take it personally!

That's correct, minus your emotional flotsam.

Someone can be a liberal and be a basically good person. It happens. It happens a lot. See Martin's earlier essay on George McGovern.

I believe in most cases the results of liberal policies, when they work themselves out in the real world, are often the opposite of what liberals intended. You could see misgivings of that nature coming out from many of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's writings. You can see them coming out now about Affirmative Action, as it is becoming clear that they harm the very minorities they were supposed to benefit.

And I believe it will happen with Obamacare.

There are the idealists, and there are the players in both parties. For some folks, liberal ideas are sacred and it's the idealism that matters. And there are others for whom the ideals are a mere vehicle for power. That's harder to do in the Republican Party, where someone who wants more state power has to fight a base that wants less -- it still happens, it's just harder to do.

But there is no such conflict between the Democratic Party and its base.

Regarding the Nazis, their advertised agenda in the Twenties was, minus the violent anti-Semitism, was pretty close to the Progressives of the age. I don't blame leftism for the Holocaust. I blame leftism for giving players like Hitler the power to pull it off.

Unfettered power corrupts, and not only that, attracts corrupt people. That's why it's better to keep it dispersed.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Someone who was actually plotting to destroy the institution of marriage so that everyone would be dependent upon the state would be evil. Of course, that's only happening in the paranoid fantasies of the Right. Blue state liberals are actually marrying more, and staying married longer, than those in red states where opposition to marriage equality is the highest. Making marriage more available as an evil plot to cause everyone to quit marrying is the same kind of logic you exhibit when you blame progressives for a reactionary, nationalistic extreme right ideology like Nazism.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"For some folks, liberal ideas are sacred and it's the idealism that matters. And there are others for whom the ideals are a mere vehicle for power. That's harder to do in the Republican Party, where someone who wants more state power has to fight a base that wants less -- it still happens, it's just harder to do."

That simply isn't true. A large part of the GOP base wants to greatly increase the power of the state in the regulation of personal sexuality, as evidenced by the slew of anti-abortion regulations enacted by red states, and the desire for the federal government to restrict the states ability to
grant marriage equality.

Lee said...

> That simply isn't true. A large part of the GOP base wants to greatly increase the power of the state in the regulation of personal sexuality...

I agree, if by regulation of personal sexuality, you mean they are opposed to forcing taxpayers to subsidize birth control pills for upscale law school students.

> ...as evidenced by the slew of anti-abortion regulations enacted by red states

Yep. Roe v. Wade caused power to flow from the states to the federal government, centralizing it in one place. Like I said.

And some things should be against the law. Like, you know, murder.

> ...and the desire for the federal government to restrict the states ability to grant marriage equality.

Last time we talked, you were all in favor of the federal government restricting states from banning same-sex marriage.

It's a right when you want the feds to do something. It's restriction when I want the states to do something.

Anonymous said...

KyCobb,

From what I can gather, you seem to be under the impression that if the majority of a state/country's citizens are in agrrement over a certain law being made or not being made, then the majority should rule, no matter what the issue is (Please correct me if I'm wrong in this observation.) You would of course be right in almost all cases but there are a few in which you are gravely mistaken. That line of logic throws morality out the window entirely and instead of championing the right, the voice of the people is considered divine. Here's why. There are things in this world that are evil. They are not made evil simply by someone calling them evil. They would be evil even if all men said they were good. Murder is evil. Rape is evil. Child abuse is evil. These things would continue being evil no matter what everyone said about them. So, in highly controversial matters of morality such as abortion or gay marriage, saying that the majority is fine with it really means nothing. You could of course make arguments for these things and I for one have no aversion to hearing them, but you are making a grave error in thinking that matters of morality like these can be justified on the sole basis of how many people support them.