American leftists, when it suits them, will speak vehemently about collective responsibility and everyone's actions affecting everyone else. If you eat meat, you're starving poor people; if you drive a car, you're poisoning Mother Gaia. But the _same_ leftists, when it suits them, will suddenly switch to a highly _individualistic_ view of right and wrong. Hold that thought, it will be expounded further.
I am writing this on Valentine's Day. Homosexuals are using this day as an occasion to promote their unilateral redefinition of the very _most_ fundamental human relationships. And it's worth noting who is _helping_ them do so. This morning, the _conservative_ radio station I routinely listen to, KNUS-AM of Denver, did a broadcast _praising_ same-sex couples to the skies. This makes utter nonsense of the claim by gays that they are still an oppressed, persecuted minority; the _reality_ is that the gay minority is close to enjoying an absolute _monopoly_ on being able to say anything about what marriage is.
The gay spokesman invited to speak on KNUS did the individualistic thing, by arguing that the one-on-one love between two gay partners is, all by itself, enough to constitute marriage. As long as there's love, love love, love, love, there _can't_ be any problem for society at large. But now remember the meat-eater and the car-owner: _they_ are not allowed to be so simplistic in self-justification. The meat-eater _isn't_ allowed simply to tell the angry vegan, "It's just about my being hungry;" and the car-owner _isn't_ allowed simply to tell the angry environmentalist, "It's just about my wanting to go someplace." Why, then, should _homosexuals_ be specially immune to challenge over the possibility that _their_ actions might affect the world adversely?
Until technology advances farther than it has yet, human reproduction will still require _both_ a male gene-source and a female gene-source. Therefore, any child raised by a same-sex couple will, by definition, be raised _without_ one of the biological parents being a _primary_ caregiver. Yes, that biological parent who _isn't_ in the gay couple may still be _present_ in the child's life; but unless we're talking about a commune, the child won't have both birth parents in a _central_ custodial role. Now, _even_ in the present collapsing condition of education, a child _will_ eventually learn how he or she came into existence.... which means that the child raised by gays will _know_ that his or her actual mother or father _didn't_ step into the primary parental slot (and in some cases, felt no interest).
Yes, the custodial gay couple may have good intentions; they may love the child to pieces. But it will _still_ be a fact that the child is aware of one _actual_ parent being at a distance, if not completely absent. Add up millions of children growing up this way, and the specific bond of _biological_ parents to their children will be eroded. These children might nonetheless grow up feeling as loved as anyone else; but what they might NOT have is the full sense of obligation to any future children _they_ may beget. Which adds to the tidal trend in which self-contained natural families are ever less and less valued in society. And in turn, Big Government has less need to worry about anyone being _loyal_ to anything other than Big Government.
Gays will now harrumph at me, "Well, by _your_ homophobic reasoning, _every_ adoption, including by straight couples, is _also_ disrupting the natural order!" They will believe themselves to be right when they say this, because their enslavement to their own emotions will have prevented them from thinking the issue all the way through. But there IS more to it.
When my now-deceased Mary and I adopted our daughter, we were adopting a girl who had already _been_ deprived of conventional biological parenting, by circumstances which Mary and I had not in any way created. So what we were doing was providing the nearest possible _substitute_ for the ideal model of husband, wife, and blood-related offspring. But we are now being asked -- actually, we are being _commanded_ by the pampered homosexual elite -- to accept arrangements in which gay couples intentionally _cause_ a child to live without the most normal of parenting. And that makes a difference, because the children _will_ eventually realize what was done.
So no, saying "Love, love, love!" _isn't_ a complete answer to this large-scale social concern. There _will_ be far-reaching consequences from training a new generation to believe that the _genetic_ parent-child connection is trivial and easily dispensed with. Possibly most gays honestly _haven't_ considered this.... but you can bet that there are some arrogant, narcissistic, cynical social engineers who _have_ considered it, and who _desire_ the damage to occur.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
If you see writing here, then Google finally condescended to GIVE the blogging service it claims to be giving. I'm trying to record here a thought I've long had.
There's one problem with the currently popular preference for saying "He made good choices" or "He made bad choices." This way of talking can come across as if you're saying that the person DIDN'T KNOW WHAT he was choosing between -- as if he was presented with two closed boxes and could only guess what was in them. Now, many decisions in life ARE made, even HAVE TO be made, on a blind guess.... but not ALL decisions. There are also cases when a person DESIRES IN ADVANCE to do wrong, plans it and looks forward to it. In those instances, there is no accidental "mistake" involved, but rather intentional wrongdoing.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Friday, March 21, 2014
Calvinism arose in resistance to arbitrary tyranny by the Church of Rome. Calvinists then proceeded to imagine God as _also_ being arbitrarily tyrannical. We read in Matthew 22:14 that many are called, but few are chosen. A perfectly sufficient explanation for this is that most _refuse_ God's invitation by their own will; but for Calvinists, that explanation doesn't seem to make God "sovereign" enough. Obsessed _only_ with God being powerful and invincible, Calvinists base all their thinking on His power and control; then they say that _anything_ they imagine Him doing _must_ somehow be good-- which, of course, is the same thing that trembling lackeys will say about any _human_ tyrant. So they insist that God entirely _forces_ people to refuse or accept His invitation, without _them_ ever having any say about it. Yet, in language which their own doctrine renders meaningless, they still _claim_ that He's calling to everyone. Of course, if God unilaterally _makes_ most people reject Him, He _isn't_ calling all people, He's only pretending to. In order to protect their morally-bankrupt ideas from being challenged, Calvinists will say, "It's a mystery, and the argument will never be resolved in this world." What they really _mean_ is that they want NON-Calvinists to shut up, while the Calvinists keep right on preaching micro-predestination as aggressively as ever.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
As of this entry, I am very close to completing Volume One of the Eliot Granholm saga. This introductory novel, set in the years 2166 through 2168, is titled "Journey of the Grey Eagle." Eliot Granholm is a pediatric surgeon, and the VERY LAST Christian on Earth (although by this time the planets Mars and Mercury have been colonized, and Christians enjoy freedom of religion and speech there). What prevents Eliot from simply being stomped on like a bug is the fact that he acquires superhuman powers. Sort of like a kinder, gentler version of X-Man Wolverine escaping from the experimenters.
Friday, November 1, 2013
If you create an alternate-universe television series, imagining if Sherlock Holmes lived in modern times, this gives you plenty of latitude to put words in the mouth of the 21st-century Holmes. The reputation for genius of the original Holmes character means that _anything_ you want to tell your audience, once placed in the mouth of _your_ Holmes, can be made to seem brilliant and indisputable. But if you are a bootlicking lackey of the politically-correct pop culture, you won't try to provide any _actual_ wisdom to the viewers; instead, you'll use your Holmes-bot as a flattery device for leftwing urban audiences. You'll program him to tell those yuppies that whatever they wanted to believe anyway, is the peak of sophisticated insight.
Several episodes ago, the p.c. Sherlock in the series "Elementary" did the bidding of his p.c. scriptwriters, trying to make sure that the expression "intellectually bankrupt" would mean what the viewers wanted it to mean. It isn't hard these days to find authentic examples of intellectual bankruptcy: it can be found co-existing with _moral_ bankruptcy. There are men, for instance, who display their intellectual and moral bankruptcy by saying a woman is worthless unless she is "hot," who _define_ "hotness" in ways that real-world women can scarcely manage to live up to, and who meanwhile don't even TRY to be pleasing to the women in return. There are women who display their intellectual and moral bankruptcy by proclaiming how all-important "freedom to choose" is when they want to kill their babies, but who refuse to see ANY importance in "freedom to choose" when abortion is forced on Chinese women who _didn't_ want to kill their babies. And of course, millions of American men and women display their intellectual and moral bankruptcy by insisting that our government should be able to distribute unlimited welfare giveaways to countless people for endless time, and by pretending that anyone who contradicts this fantasy must be a racist. There's no end of genuine idiots to point to. But whom did the revisionist Sherlock Holmes identify in dialogue as being "philosopher-in-chief to the intellectually bankrupt"? He identified Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged."
Ayn Rand contradicted the fundamental delusion of welfare-state thinkers. The viewing audience of "Elementary" includes limousine liberals who perpetuate that same delusion. Surprise surprise, Revisionist Sherlock was made to side with the limousine liberals. Ayn Rand had to be the one who was intellectually bankrupt, so that the elite crowds of the east and west coasts could continue patting themselves on the back for being hip and progressive.
That much was bad enough. But then came the "Elementary" episode broadcast on Halloween night. In it, they showed Lieutenant Gregson's wife deciding that she was tired of him and wanted to shop around. This kind of thing has become the _norm_ for detective shows, with either spouse equally likely to break the vows; but in this instance, it set up the opportunity for Sherlock Holmes to flatter the leftwing audience again. He told the female Doctor Watson that Gregson would do _better_ as a detective without a wife, because MARRIAGE ITSELF was unnatural and unhealthy. This, to please the crowd that goes for frivolous divorce, shack-ups and one-night stands.
The way this plot thread was handled had an additional purpose: using ambiguous talk about "partnerships" as a way to serve notice to the audience that it _would_ be possible for Sherlock's relationship with Joan Watson to become a romantic one someday.... only, it MUST NOT AND WOULD NOT ever, ever, ever be a matter of that yucky, outmoded custom called marriage.
Funny thing about the female Watson: I was never a fan of Lucy Liu before, but she does such a _superb_ acting job as Joan Watson that now I am a fan of hers. It is really _only_ for her sake that I still watch the series. Between her skilled portrayal of a smart lady with a likeable personality (unlike the abrasive shrew she portrayed in "Ally McBeal"), and her simply spectacular physical attractiveness, she provides a female-lead character whom any unattached male-lead character _ought_ to fall in love with. But for the sake of gratifying the chic-nightclub set and the campus-hookup set, the writers of "Elementary" have installed their own kind of glass ceiling: a ceiling intended to prevent any Sherlock-and-Joan affection from rising to the level of -- oh, _merely_ the sacred life-commitment on which civilization was built.
Ironically, Ayn Rand was _also_ not a champion of Biblical marriage, or of Biblical faith. But as I have remarked before now, the hard left in the United States has its own version of setting high standards. You're not allowed to agree with the left merely on _some_ things; unless you fall into lockstep with the left on _every_ subject without exception, you remain vulnerable to being accused of hate speech, greed -- or intellectual bankruptcy. Miss Rand opposed socialism, so she fails inspection just like that. Readers of Miss Rand's books need not marvel at this; after all, you're not even allowed to be Sherlock Holmes anymore unless you conform to the hard left.