"Uniquely Nasty: The Government's War on Gays"

[Bradski]

Obviously a Freudian slip. I think you meant: “…can’t be proven right or wrong.”

No slip. If you have a secular argument against SSM that you consider to be factually based, then it can be proved correct or not. If you have an opinion, then it can’t.

Popular opinion is just that. Popular.

 

[Bradski]

Well, if you find yourself in disagreement with the majority, then to some people it becomes ‘the mob’ or ‘the masses’. Majority opinion becomes ‘fickle and prone to faddism’ and is based on ‘rhetoric and social pressure’. But maybe if you agree, then it’s ‘the voice of the people’.

Either way, I’m not interested. Argumentum ad populum wasn’t exactly a position I was likely to take when I was in a distinct minority. Now I find myself in the majority, it’s use would be hypocritical.

I’ve always believed the arguments against SSM to be invalid. Not many people agreed. Then a majority agreed. Now a majority of the Supreme Court agrees. That doesn’t make me more right. But excuse me if I feel some satisfaction in that I have been proved correct in my claims that this is always a point we would reach sooner or later.

Turns out it was sooner…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, if you find yourself in disagreement with the majority, then to some people it becomes ‘the mob’ or ‘the masses’. Majority opinion becomes ‘fickle and prone to faddism’ and is based on ‘rhetoric and social pressure’. But maybe if you agree, then it’s ‘the voice of the people’.

Majority opinion isn’t mob rule merely because it is a majority. It is the manner in which the opinion has become a majority one that counts. When overt social pressure is brought to bear against dissenters - calling them bigots, homophobes, sick, etc., and bringing economic threats and trumped-up legal sanctions against those who voice dissent in public or do not toe the party line, those are symptomatic of mob rule.

Bradski, if there wasn’t so much spit and venom against one view and if both views were treated impartially and considered with, at least, a modicum of fair-mindedness in the market place of ideas, then your analysis might have some merit, but none of these have been the case in the debate. The dissenting view is vilified without good reason and portrayed unjustly at the gate of this society - mob rule is the correct description for what is going on, and you, if you have an impartial bone in your body, would agree.

The mob won’t listen to the arguments from the other side and most couldn’t provide an adequate summary of what those arguments actually are. The mob “argument” is a simple one - inclusivity. Welcome to the mob - join us, you will be included if you agree with us.

Mob rule isn’t the same as majority rule, its pretensions and prejudices give it away every time.

 

[Bradski]

Bradski, if there wasn’t so much spit and venom against one view and if both views were treated impartially and considered…

I read a lot about this matter. Neutral commentary as well as views form both sides of the fence. I will tell you now, as honestly as I can, with hand on heart, that most of the spit and venom is coming from people with your views.

What we have are sporadic problems with gay activists, and I use the term advisedly, stepping over the line. They are not representative of the views of ‘the mob’, as you call them. The views of the (increasing) majority of people are relatively benign. That is not to say they have put no thought into the matter. Constant Christian complaints about it have ensured that it is almost impossible not to have thought about it.

And there, as I have said before, is your problem. The more you bring up the subject, the more you rail against it, the more people become more informed about it. And people realise…there’s really no problem. Your complaints that they are just a mob, that these people are sheep, that there has been no thought gone into this, is so far off the mark as to be considered as sour grapes.

Lots of thought has gone into this by a lot of people who hadn’t really concerned themselves about the matter before, and you are part of the reason for that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I read a lot about this matter. Neutral commentary as well as views form both sides of the fence. I will tell you now, as honestly as I can, with hand on heart, that most of the spit and venom is coming from people with your views.

What we have are sporadic problems with gay activists, and I use the term advisedly, stepping over the line. They are not representative of the views of ‘the mob’, as you call them. The views of the (increasing) majority of people are relatively benign. That is not to say they have put no thought into the matter. Constant Christian complaints about it have ensured that it is almost impossible not to have thought about it.

And there, as I have said before, is your problem. The more you bring up the subject, the more you rail against it, the more people become more informed about it. And people realise…there’s really no problem. Your complaints that they are just a mob, that these people are sheep, that there has been no thought gone into this, is so far off the mark as to be considered as sour grapes.

Not sour grapes. Concern about long term repercussions that haven’t been given sufficient consideration. The progressive crowd has had its day with regard to no fault divorce and abortion. Both of those have been disasters as far as the fallout on humanity as a whole. Some never learn. This will not be pretty.

 

[Midwest88]

You know what’s uniquely nasty? People who show up on a Catholic site to gloat.

The gay marriage side says “love is love”, but gloating, smugness and sarcasm are all the opposite of love.

And, actually, this type of ugly behavior, that I saw at close hand and in real life, was one of the first reasons I started to be a lot less sympathetic to the gay cause. Relentless rage and bullying is not something I want to be anywhere near

bold: I predicted the same thing when Ireland voted in same-sex “marriage.” Here’s what I said -

Also, when the results come out (no pun) expect LGBT supporters to be flooding non-“progressive” sites gloating. It’s what they do - I would know since I experienced first hand. So just be ready. Such people may come onto CA.

I was once a supporter of same-sex “marriage” (at one point I thought it was a test from God to change the Church’s stance …Yea ) but then my political leanings changed (odd story, really) then I slowly was opened to the psychological web that resides the LGBT activist’s mind. It was like watching slime slowly get pulled down by gravity on a wall. I then observed the community itself. Yikes. And yes, I do know people who fall under the LGBT letters. My own sibling is one.

 

[Bradski]

Also, when the results come out (no pun) expect LGBT supporters to be flooding non-“progressive” sites gloating. It’s what they do - I would know since I experienced first hand. So just be ready. Such people may come onto CA.

Maybe you can point me to this tsunami of SSM supporters that have come onto CA since the vote in Ireland. Or the Supreme Court vote.

 

[Midwest88]

Maybe you can point me to this tsunami of SSM supporters that have come onto CA since the vote in Ireland. Or the Supreme Court vote.

Though not a tsunami, go see threads about the US ruling. A good one is the one with the most counts.Of course, in my OP, I did say “some may come to CA,” so no tsunami does make ‘some.’

 

[Midwest88]

This Yahoo! documentary has been brought up on PBS NewsHour. Was the stuff brought up in the documentary really that bad?

It was issued on June 26, the day of the ruling. It’s that obvious they want the public to see the LGBT as the new “runaway slave.”

 

[Bradski]

Though not a tsunami, go see threads about the US ruling. A good one is the one with the most counts.Of course, in my OP, I did say “some may come to CA,” so no tsunami does make ‘some.’

Almost all Catholics posting in all of them. And those with no faith who post on the matter have been here quite some time.

And you said ‘such people may come to CA’. Not ‘some’. How about you point to just one person who supports SSM who has come to CA since either vote specifically to comment on it.

 

[Cathoholic]

Bold from quote below mine . . . .

QUOTE:
So, it is through Nature that we come to understand the proper use of things. . . . . since the ends of things are intrinsic to them, man does not get to make them up, but only to discover them through the use of his reason. He can then choose to conform his behavior to these ends in a life of virtue or to frustrate them in a life of vice. He can choose to become fully human or to dehumanize himself.

If his choice is the latter, he will not present it to himself in those terms. As Aristotle said, he must see what he selects as a good in order to be able to select it. If he chooses to rebel against the order of things, he will present this choice to himself not as one in favor of disorder, but as one for order—but of another sort. He will, as we have said, rationalize: vice becomes virtue.

—From Robert R. Reilly (Making Gay Okay p.27)

Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything
Hardcover – April 15, 2014
by Robert R. Reilly

Link for book quoted above here and here.