Thursday, June 19, 2008

More stupid media propaganda: Conservatives are against love

Today in the LA Times, there's an article titled "The right to love". This provocative title assumes that people opposed to re-defining the institution of marriage to something other than a man and a woman, somehow implies that opponents are trying to impose on a homosexual's "right to love". It has to be one of the most misleading titles ever published at the LA Times.

Opponents of the re-definition of marriage do not take issue with anything but the very definition of marriage that has been in place for thousands of years and has defined one of the most important institutions during the history of man.Family. Family is directly related to child-bearing and pro-creation, hence man and woman. It is an definition that holds true value to heterosexual families and should not be infringed by those who want to redefine what the majority of Americans call "marriage".

Let's be clear, those opposed to re-defining marriage do not take issue with the rights of homosexuals nor do they take issue with homosexuality itself. There are obviously no laws prohibiting homosexuals from the same rights they currently have, and have had, much less laws prohibiting them from "loving" which this article title so ridiculously implies. Gay couples have no more rights today than before this decision by the California Supreme Court came down.

This is not only an infringement on the sanctity of the institution that was established by traditional family values and heterosexual marriage from the beginning of time, but also an infringement on democracy, allowing liberal activist judges to define and create laws, ignoring the 65% of voters of California who voted in 2000 to keep the definition of marriage in its traditional state. In a democracy, what ultimately matters is the will of the people, not activist judges legislating from the bench. Now the average liberal talking point is:

"The law prohibited interracial marriage in the past so this is just the same thing!"

There is no DIFFERENCE between interracial couples. Interracial marriage should have never been banned for this very reason. On the other hand, there is an obvious biological difference between man and woman and that's what makes this argument so absurd.

The law doesn't recognize the right to marry 2 individuals, so wouldn't that be discriminatory as well? Especially if you're infringing on the "right to love" as the LA Times puts it? According the gay movement, the answer is yes. What about marriage between man and animal? This grossly negligent decision will open the door up to all kinds of lawsuits where gay couples want their relationships defined as "marriage". This hurts our society not only here in California, but the rest of America as well because now, if you oppose the definition of marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, you are looked at as homophobic, bigoted or xenophobic.

In 2000, Californians voted overwhelmingly to keep the definition of marriage, as recognized by the state, between one man and one woman. They did not vote to ban gay marriage, nor did they vote to take any rights away from gay couples. They simply voted for the definition of a historical tradition to be upheld, and not to allow another group take away that definition which families have held dear since the beginning of time.

Regardless of what your opinion on gay marriage is, judicial legislation in this manner is a serious blow to the democratic process which is supposed to uphold the values of the people, not the agenda of a handful of politically driven, unaccountable, hand picked judicial activists.


British parliament decides Fatherhood is irrelevant

Last Wednesday, the British House of Commons decided that a father is completely and totally irrelevant to a child's development. The legislation in question, which dealt with in vitro fertilization, or IVF, would have included a clause requiring a fertility doctor to "consider a child's need for a male role model before giving women IVF treatment," according to the news site This Is London. Even though IVF already marginalizes fathers by effectively removing them from the procreative process, feminists would not allow even this bland and toothless reference to men to stand. The clause was voted down.

This Is London went on to add that "the Government argued that the law as it stood discriminated against single women and lesbian couples - although both these groups can already get fertility treatment on the Health Service. From now on, doctors will have to consider only a child's need for 'supportive parenting'." Whatever that means.

Those of us who still celebrate Father's Day should reflect on this not simply as an isolated event, but as the latest in a long string of attacks that fatherhood has suffered at the hands of feminists and abortionists.

Modern feminists maintain that their highest goal is equality and liberty, but their agenda runs far deeper than that. It is summed up in the phrase, "bodily autonomy," an idea first developed and promoted by Margaret Sanger in her 1914 book, The Woman Rebel. This old-new catchphrase is still used by her ideological descendants. For the sex-obsessed feminism that Sanger helped create, simple equality is not enough. Women need to free themselves not only from men, but also from families, from religion, and especially from pregnancy. They must be completely free to do what they wish, when they wish, with no responsibility to anyone else but themselves.

This goal of radical autonomy essentially views men as members of an alien species. It completely ignores the complementary nature of men and women as two halves of the same race, whose bonding in lifelong, monogamous relationships is necessary for the survival, happiness and salvation of both. For this brand of feminism, the feminine defines what it means to be human. It is all there is, and it is infinitely plastic. Folk singer Ani DiFranco gleefully calls it "self-determination, and it's very open-ended: every woman has the right to become herself, and do whatever she needs to do."

In their quest to free themselves from the supposed bonds of male oppression, radical feminists have gone far beyond simply marginalizing and dehumanizing men. They have striven to form a world where every function that has historically been performed by men can be performed by women, with the aid of technology. Their goal is to render fathers and husbands not only unnecessary, but completely superfluous. Even the terms "father" and "husband" are to be rendered out-of-style and obsolete, odd relics from a bygone age, snatches of a song no longer sung.

This predictably wreaks havoc on the family, whose structure follows an age-old reproductive logic: a man, a woman, and the children that they procreate or adopt. If women are autonomous beings, answerable only to themselves, then the family loses its fundamental meaning. It must be redefined in nonbiological ways, and become infinitely inclusive.

Gender itself becomes fluid, as in California, where what bathroom one chooses to enter depends not upon one's genitalia, but upon what gender one has adopted that day. And, of course, ways must be found not only to exist, but to procreate, without men. The Amazons of legend kept men in cages; the radical feminists, assisted by modern technology, keep only the biologically necessary germ cells in test tubes, with abortion as a backup in case the experiment goes awry. If men attempted to build a society on such principles, it would rightly be considered insanity. But when radical feminists do it, it is merely "feminism."

The pro-life movement faces multiple tasks. It is not enough simply to overturn back laws and change attitudes about abortion, contraception and sex. The very fabric of the relationship between men and women must be stitched back together. What radical feminists do not realize is that by exploding the family, they are destroying the institution that has protected most women over most of human history from abuse. If men are not to be allowed to grow into their vital role as husbands and fathers, then they will simply use, violate and abandon women. The radical feminists are thus exacerbating the very attitudes and trends among men that they purport to be trying to escape.

One of the keys to ending abortion is to reinvigorate fatherhood. Intact, functioning and loving families protect their youngest and most vulnerable members. Isolated individuals - of either sex - do not.


Islam stuck in the Middle Ages, says Catholic theologian Hans Kung

Theologically, Kung is a far-Leftist

Islam is stuck in its own version of the "Middle Ages" which is contributing to a global crisis, one of the religion's leading experts has argued. Professor Hans Kung, a leading Roman Catholic and theologian from Germany, warned in a lecture of a "deadly threat" to all humankind unless new efforts are made to build bridges with Islam. He said in London that Islam has "special problems" with modernity because, unike Christianity and Judaism, in which he also specialises, it has never undergone a "serious religious reformation".

He questioned whether Islam is even capable of adapting to a post-modern world in the way that Christianity and Judaism have done. But he also outlined why he is hopeful that the present problems around radicalisation within Islam can be resolved, and how the other two Abrahamic faiths are subject to some of the same problems on their extremist edges. Violence has been practicised in the sign of the crescent, but also in the sign of the cross, he warned.

In his lecture, seen by The Times, Professor Kung said: "The options have become clear: either rivalry of the religions, clash of civilizations, war of the nations - or dialogue of civilizations and peace between the nations as a presupposition for peace between the nations. "In the face of the deadly threat to all humankind, instead of building new dams of hatred, revenge and enmity, we should tear down the walls of prejudice stone by stone and thus build bridges of dialogue, bridges particularly towards Islam."

Professor Kung, author of Islam: Past, Present and Future, published last year and one of the most authoritative works on the subject, was speaking on "Challenges to Islam, Christianity and Judaism" in a lecture organised by the Royal Fine Art Commission Trust and Sky Arts. It will be broadcast on Sky Arts later this month.

He described how liberal Jews, Christians and Muslims often get on better with each other than they do with fellow Jews, Christians and Muslims from the traditionalist wings of those religions. A Roman Catholic "imprisoned in the Middle Ages" will find himself closer to the "medieval element" of Islam and Judaism than with liberal Catholic believers.

Professor Kung said that one of the main causes of conflicts between religions is the persistence of outdated ways of thinking. Islam and Christianity regard the actual Middle Ages as the "great time" for their religions. But modernity has forced all three religions of the book onto the "defensive", and they all face challenges over how they react to their own "Middle Ages".

He argued that Christianity and Judaism have moved on, but not Islam, adding: "It remains an open question if the ecumenical paradigm of post-modernity will develop also in Islam." Professor Kung, who aged 80 is a contemporary of the Pope and worked with him as a theological adviser to the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s, was influential at the council in persuading the Roman Catholic Church to adopt a more positive attitude to Judaism and religious freedom. He has also spoken out constantly in favour of the official recognition of the State of Israel by the Vatican and for a two-state-solution for Israelis and Palestinians.

Professor Kung, whose own liberal views cost him his official Catholic teaching licence in the last century, said that the essence of all three religions must be preserved, but those who want peace and reconciliation will not be able to avoid criticism. They must engage in self-criticism to enable their faiths to adapt to modernity. Referring to Christianity, for example, he said: "Jesus Christ as a basic model is a constant, but the law of celibacy is a variable."

He argued: "After the Reformation, Christianity had to undergo another paradigm shift, that of the Enlightenment. Judaism, after the French Revolution and Napoleon, experienced the Enlightenment first, and as a consequence, at least in Reform Judaism, it experienced also a religious reformation. Islam, however, has not undergone a serious religious reformation and so to the present day has quite special problems also with modernity and its core components, freedom of conscience and religion, human rights, tolerance, democracy."


Australia: Another case of blaming anybody but the person responsible

THE hotel industry has been spooked by the debate over who is responsible for drunken behaviour. And hotels are expected to clamp down even harder on serving drinkers who have already had alcohol. The stricter approach is likely after Coroner Stephen Carey berated the Dover Hotel in his findings on the death of a patron who fell into a river after drinking at the pub in October last year.

Peter O'Sullivan from Tasmania's liqour and gaming branch said the rules over serving alcohol to patrons who appeared drunk were very clear. But he said the broader debate about at what point those who drink to excess are responsible for their own behaviour could be murky. Hotel licensees can be fined $12,000 if charged under the Liquor Licensing Act with serving alcohol to a person who appears drunk. Staff members can be fined $6000.

On Monday, Coroner Carey said staff at the Dover Hotel had indirectly contributed to the death of John Larkins who fell down a river embankment opposite the pub while stopping to urinate on his walk home. The hotel has not been charged under the Act but the coronial "slap" has caused the hotel industry to take a closer look at responsible serving practices.

Australian Hotels Association general manager Steve Old said the association was talking with the publican at the Dover Hotel about the issue. "It is a tough one. But I do not want to delve into the broader issue of personal and industry responsibility at this stage because the publican is dealing with some legal issues," Mr Old said.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.


No comments: