The gay marriage debate between Andrew Sullivan and Doug Wilson - with Peter Hitchens moderating - is a pretty great look at the intellectual depth present on the conservative side. Worth a watch.
While I don't know that any intelligent person would question the depth of someone's intellectualism based purely on political standing, I do think that the debate highlights the key issue with the opposition to gay marriage:
It's near impossible to make an intellectual argument against that isn't solely based on the word of God, which could easily be argued restricts the depth of intellect.
And, as Peter repeats in his post-debate interview, the fight for marriage based on Christian values was lost years ago. It's certainly not going to be won convincing non-Christians that a bible-based argument against gay marriage makes sense.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
If you look at the polls on gay marriage over the last 15 years, it's clearly an issue that a great many Canadians have changed their minds about. Half the people who support gay marriage today were once against it. Do you believe all Canadians who changed their mind on the issue are being opportunist and insincere, or only the politicians?
Politicians are the only ones to gain by being insincere on this....and if a politician has something to gain by being insincere, I'm not going to put it past them.
Looking at the numbers, 2/3rds of the party supported it this time. I wouldn't be surprised if 1/3 of those did it more because they are concerned about elect-ability than actually changing their minds.
"In a 1,036-462 vote, delegates from all provinces except Saskatchewan cast majority votes in favour of no longer defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman."
So what they decided, it seams, is not to support gay marriage but to stop opposing it.
If you look at some quotes from the delegates,
Quote:
"The most important thing we need to remember is we're not redefining marriage here,'' said Natalie Pon, one of the resolution's sponsors.
"We're just taking out a definition that is out of date and out of touch.''
An attempt to justify with herself that they aren't actually supporting it.
Quote:
“I think it’s a no-brainer. This issue was resolved 10 years ago. There is no point in having … obsolete language about something that was changed in law and society a decade ago,” the Calgary MP said.[Jason Kenney]
...doing it because it was resolved in the courts...
Fuzz, delegates aren't politicians. They are the very people CliffFletcher was referencing: The public grassroots. Despite your flowery defence of my previous criticism, you are now getting yourself caught in a contradiction because you can't let go of a very partisan POV in this regard.
...doing it because it was resolved in the courts...
Wait... you read that quote and thought, "Jason Kenney only thinks this is a good idea because it was resolved by the courts, otherwise he wouldn't be in favour of it"? Am I understanding you correctly?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Wait... you read that quote and thought, "Jason Kenney only thinks this is a good idea because it was resolved by the courts, otherwise he wouldn't be in favour of it"? Am I understanding you correctly?
I'm just looking at the quote. Is that how you read it? Because if so you really need to re-evaluate the extent to which bias is clouding your views. There's nothing remotely resembling grudging acceptance about what he said there.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I'm just looking at the quote. Is that how you read it? Because if so you really need to re-evaluate the extent to which bias is clouding your views. There's nothing remotely resembling grudging acceptance about what he said there.
Even if it is just begrudging acceptance that would still be a good thing. If the people who went from marching in the streets to begrudging acceptance that is real tangible social progress. There opinions have changed and they may have actually moved further then people more central or who were always accepting of it.
I think dismissing this as political opportunism misses an important occurrence for Canadian society. It now costs you more votes then it will gain you even for a socially conservative party to be opposed to Gay marriage. This means that there will be less wackjob candidates in the future because the spectrum has shifted.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I think dismissing this as political opportunism misses an important occurrence for Canadian society. It now costs you more votes then it will gain you even for a socially conservative party to be opposed to Gay marriage. This means that there will be less wackjob candidates in the future because the spectrum has shifted.
My primary concern is that this may result in an occurrence similar to what we are seeing in the US right now; a hard shift in dialogue towards the far right in response to an increase in social freedoms.
Women's Rights goes "too far"? "Men's Rights" movement in response.
Transgender Rights goes "too far"? "Anti-Trans" movement in response.
The disenfranchisement of the far right wackjobs is palpable right now, and there will be a rise of (and already has been a rise of) socially regressive demagoguery going forward.
That's totally true... but you seem to be characterizing it as a problem solely with far-right whack jobs, which is a massive oversimplification.
Frankly the biggest problem in that area is the impossibility of even having a conversation on these topics without it being shut down by moralizing.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
What do you mean by socially regressive? Because "regressive left" is such a commonly used term these days (at least among internet political warriors) that it actually managed to jump the shark about a year after being popularized...
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The keyboard warriors use "regressive left" in a pseudo-ironic sense though, as they're likening the broadening of social acceptance and civil liberties as an infringement upon the "freedoms" of bigotry (eg the right to refuse service based on religion, sexuality, skin color etc) and protection (gun control) and other such things.
See: "The War On Christianity" or "Straight White Men Are The Only Group You Are Allowed To Suppress"
The keyboard warriors use "regressive left" in a pseudo-ironic sense though, as they're likening the broadening of social acceptance and civil liberties as an infringement upon the "freedoms" of bigotry (eg the right to refuse service based on religion, sexuality, skin color etc) and protection (gun control) and other such things.
See: "The War On Christianity" or "Straight White Men Are The Only Group You Are Allowed To Suppress"
Yeah, see, that's totally wrong. And to be fair, your mistake is probably a result of the term having jumped the shark and being #######ized so that it's being used in that way, co-opted by idiots or at least not clearly enunciated.
The purpose of the phrase was originally to describe liberals who are inconsistently applying traditional liberal values - for example, suggesting that criticism of Islam is racist or Islamophobic, to the detriment of equal rights for gays and women in the Muslim world. Or suggesting that a black conservative who vehemently disagrees with the sort activism practiced by Black Lives Matter is an Uncle Tom (and by implication that black people should all think a certain way about social issues, that people's views depend on their skin colour). If you're for free speech, empowerment of women and minorities, you should be for those things everywhere. That's what it's supposed to mean.
The motivating reason underlying the phenomenon of regressive leftism and why people fall into it is a wholly different matter, discussed here.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
A good reason not to pigeon-hole people into one category based on a single political stance. IE: Being for free education = pinko commie basterd. Or being against bloated government spending = hardline, soulless capitalist. Regardless of what you believe about anything else.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
It was coined by Maajid Nawaz - he explains the point here.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
The keyboard warriors use "regressive left" in a pseudo-ironic sense though, as they're likening the broadening of social acceptance and civil liberties as an infringement upon the "freedoms" of bigotry (eg the right to refuse service based on religion, sexuality, skin color etc) and protection (gun control) and other such things.
No, it describes a tactic used by the more dogmatic enthusiasts on the left to narrow debate and enforce conformity. In a truly diverse society, everything can be discussed and challenged in public dialogue. In a truly tolerant society, citizens recognize that others have the right to express opinions they find disagreeable. And in a truly liberal society, people are free to make dumb and bad choices, and accept the risks that go along with that freedom.
I'll give you an example. There's been some controversy in the geek sphere over the safety of women at gaming conventions. In a recent forum discussion, some said women don't go to conventions to be hit on. Others responded that reasonable adults can tell the difference between flirting and harassment, and that any gathering of large numbers of men and women at a convention will likely see flirtation and hook-ups. Then white knights stepped in to condemn the notion of hook-ups at a convention, and, most tellingly, made the presumption that only men would initiate something so sordid.
That's where regressive comes it. It's the recognition that many on the left today are fearful of the freedoms that progressives fought for 40-50 years ago. They're anxious, fragile, and judgemental, and demonstrate a kind of prudish piety that used to be confined to church-going conservatives. And they're motivated by the same desire as conservatives - to enforce a narrow social conformity in order to make themselves feel secure and safe, and to give themselves license to indulge in the pleasure of public shaming.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
No, it describes a tactic used by the more dogmatic enthusiasts on the left to narrow debate and enforce conformity. In a truly diverse society, everything can be discussed and challenged in public dialogue. In a truly tolerant society, citizens recognize that others have the right to express opinions they find disagreeable. And in a truly liberal society, people are free to make dumb and bad choices, and accept the risks that go along with that freedom.
I'll give you an example. There's been some controversy in the geek sphere over the safety of women at gaming conventions. In a recent forum discussion, some said women don't go to conventions to be hit on. Others responded that reasonable adults can tell the difference between flirting and harassment, and that any gathering of large numbers of men and women at a convention will likely see flirtation and hook-ups. Then white knights stepped in to condemn the notion of hook-ups at a convention, and, most tellingly, made the presumption that only men would initiate something so sordid.
That's where regressive comes it. It's the recognition that many on the left today are fearful of the freedoms that progressives fought for 40-50 years ago. They're anxious, fragile, and judgemental, and demonstrate a kind of prudish piety that used to be confined to church-going conservatives. And they're motivated by the same desire as conservatives - to enforce a narrow social conformity in order to make themselves feel secure and safe, and to give themselves license to indulge in the pleasure of public shaming.
This explanation feels a lot more colored by personal opinion than the rational approach taken above.
This explanation feels a lot more colored by personal opinion than the rational approach taken above.
In my circles, I routinely come across left-wing idiocy, so yes, that shapes my opinions. Just as your opinions about social conservatives are colored by the idiots you come across on social media.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
