SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: D. Long who wrote (28945)2/11/2004 5:10:46 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 793858
 
You take a very narrow, individual-benefits view of the problem. It is wider than that. Distorting the marriage institution to sanction homosexuality as normal and acceptable has potentially deep sociological impact.

I recognize that there are distortions and then there are DISTORTIONS. I recognize that homosexual marriage is a paradigm shift from what we have now.

But the institution of marriage has already had one paradigm shift during my lifetime. That came about when divorce became easy and accepted and when having sex and raising children without benefit of marriage became generally accepted and, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from sex and children within marriage. That was a monster of a paradigm shift. It took civil marriage from the near equivalent of holy matrimony to an expedient.

Lots of folks have groused about that and bemoaned that and mourned over that, but there was no consensus to "save" marriage. Now we are at another threshold and this time folks are drawing a line. You are making the distinction between heterosexual corruption and homosexual corruption. I understand that distinction. I also understand that a stand can be made here more easily because the shift event more dramatic than it was with the last paradigm shift. The last one was well underway before people recognized it and by then the barn door was open and the horse gone.

If people would take the position that they regretted having been caught napping at the last paradigm shift and aren't about to let that happen again, that would make sense to me. If people were do say that they don't mind the corruption of the last paradigm shift but they just can't suffer queers so they plan to stop this one, that would make sense to me, too. But this mewling about saving holy matrimony when that battle was lost lost decades ago makes no sense and seems intellectually dishonest to the max.

So, what you call a "narrow view," I call a recognition of both stages of paradigm shift.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News