What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The Shrieking Harpies of Tolerance Dine On Their Friends

ian-reisner-ted-cruz.jpgAnother Thing You Can't Be Without Threats To Your Livelihood: Gay owners of a gay resort and a gay-friendly hotel -- who dare to speak politely with Ted Cruz.

You really can't make this up. If I had said this would happen, reasonable people would have disparaged me for being a paranoid dealing in slippery slopes. If you're a reasonable person, the odds are that your realistic worst-case scenario isn't paranoid enough.

The men in question own Fire Island Pines Resorts and Out NYC.

If you read the statement by the organization that canceled their charity event, you'll see them refer to two NYTimes articles, both of which show that the men did nothing more wrong than meeting with Cruz.

Comments (10)

Yeah, these two gays have the appalling effrontery to have been formed by the previous 20 years - before the last 5 years - of gay battles, in which their position was NOT in the ascendancy and they had to play nice with those who disagreed with them in order to be heard. However, now that their agenda is king, it is wrong, wrong, wrong to play nice with those who disagree with them. It is no longer even reasonable to attempt to reason with Republicans, even though "reasoning" with Republicans has brought 1/2 of Republicans around on the issue because we've got useful idiots like Ben Domenech going all soft and squishy on gays. (It hasn't, really: reasoning had nothing to do with it, but the official story line called it that - until now.)

Mind you, what happened 7 years ago, like statements in the mouths of men like Candidate Obama against gay marriage, don't count for today - except statements like that where the person STILL holds by the statement. Failure to display a mind- and soul-bending flexibility on the matter is proof positive of cave-man irrationality and bigotry. Those who construct rational natural law arguments against the gay agenda are by that very fact showing their irrational hatred. Of course, after 100 years of beating up on the natural law in the universities, courts, schools, and media, nobody actively believes in it anyway.

In a healthy society, there would not have been debates on non-marriages in the first place. The very proposal would be dismissed with laughter. So, it was a great error for social conservatives to debate eternal verities in nihilistic mode and subject the eternal verities to vagaries of political process.
In short, one can debate with a polygamist or with a person that supports limited divorce. But there can be no debate with a person that is so far gone out as to question complementarity.

They know they can not debate-it is a question of will power and the unfortunate tendency of social conservatives to debate and devotion to 1st Amendment absolutism has backfired.

Eg Paul Cella commitment made here that even though an alien may foment riots in an American city, he supports the right of the said alien to engage in dubious political activity.

Paul Cella commitment made here that even though an alien may foment riots in an American city, he supports the right of the said alien to engage in dubious political activity.

What in the world are you talking about? Where did Paul ever say that?

The hard case for free speech, 26th Jan 2015, though it turned out that Paul Cella was factually incorrect. The alien in question turned out to have American citizenship as well.

Oh, please. We did dismiss this nonsense with laughter. Radical reactionary kooks always want to imply that somehow it's the social conservatives who are to blame. If social conservatives hadn't, e.g., passed marriage protection amendments in some states (which, gasp, counts presumably as making marriage subject to the political process), the homosexual activists would simply have imposed their will _sooner_. _Civil_ marriage has always been subject to state definition. There has been nothing wrong about explicitly making those state definitions complementary through the political process when insanity was on the rise. That did not constitute treating it as _dubious_ that marriage was between one man and one woman. Neither do the debating activities of, say, Ryan Anderson count as some sort of admission that homosexual marriage is an intellectually viable option. But you can always count on a reactionary to be unpleasant to social conservatives out of some kind of weird notion of purism.

The rhetorical character of that January post, along with the details of distinction contained therein, were clearly lost on BI.

"It is a question of power," he says: right before arguing for giving nihilists and Jacobins more power, by abandoning the defense of the principle of free speech, one of the few principles left upon which conservatives may mount public arguments. Maybe BI has not noticed that in many Western countries where no constitutional protection exists for free speech, it is functionally illegal to argue against gay marriage at all.

But of course BI has just announced that he thinks debate and public argumentation are futile projects, which leaves the reader wondering why BI constantly fills up comment threads with debate and public argumentation.

So, it was a great error for social conservatives to debate eternal verities in nihilistic mode and subject the eternal verities to vagaries of political process.

Social conservatives don't debate "in nihilistic mode".

Marriage, as a key part of society's structure, has always been subject to the political process, which is how society manages itself.

In a healthy society, eternal verities would be recognized as such, and our discussions would revolve around how to engage them in our civil laws.

They know they can not debate-it is a question of will power and the unfortunate tendency of social conservatives to debate and devotion to 1st Amendment absolutism has backfired.

Of course they can debate it. Only a fool thinks that they don't have arguments. They are convincing enough (on their own terms, which also happen to be the terms of many others in the West today) that many people agree with their reasoning.

I'm amused by "the unfortunate tendency of social conservatives to debate". Should we instead shut up and follow someone blindly? Was that the way of the American founders? The Fathers of the Council of Trent? St. Thomas Aquinas? Boethius? Aristotle?

And if Bedarz believes we are mistaken because of our fundamental principles, how are we to discover this fact? It would seem that we must start by questioning our own fundamental principles. But he apparently believes that we should not debate fundamental principles. So how are we ever to be corrected?

Woe! We are lost in our ignorance forever, with no way out! We are incapable of debating with our adversaries, who are winning the day! Look upon our works, ye mighty, and despair!

From the NYT article:

"Mr. Reisner, asked about the possible dissonance between his gay activism and being at an event for Mr. Cruz, said he did not agree with the senator on social issues. Same-sex marriage, he said, 'is done — it’s just going to happen.'"

1. Candidates don't meet with folks for some sort of free exchange of ideas and really wealthy folks usually have serious time constraints. This was a campaign event as was the earlier meeting with HRC. Each side wanted something.

2. The above quote tells all. Folks like Reisner will never experience job discrimination and will never be subject to abortion laws but they can have their plans thwarted by marriage laws. This is why you all are winning on abortion but losing on marriage. Studies have shown that what the folks at the top want they usually get - the plutocracy you know.

3. These guys, like most of their peers, live in a bubble and can do some really stupid things if their aides are clueless about something. Ted Cruz is one of the most loathed political figures in our nation - N.B. I didn't restrict that to just the left. The reaction is entirely predictable. I will assume the folks responsible are looking for new jobs.

So did Weimar republic gain anything by engaging with Nazis as a normal political party?
Some people can be reasoned with--I myself gave examples of polygamist Muslims and divorce-believing sectarians.
But those that reject complementarity, they are outside of province of reason. They require others methods of persuasion.

The best evidence for my position is all the adverse judgments against conservative position (usually delivered by Republican appointed judges) dismiss the conservative position as motivated by nothing else than irrational animus and bigotry.,

Rhetorically, when a conservative argues for complementarity in marriage, complementarity appears as extrinsic to marriage.

And what is the actual position of conservatives now? Not even unarmed Third world slum dwellers go in fear of transgenders, generally the most outcast of all men. To be bullied by eunuchs!

Ryan Anderson today
"Rather than rush to a fifty-state “solution” on marriage policy for the entire country, the Supreme Court should allow the laboratories of democracy the time and space to see how redefining marriage will impact society as a whole."
thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14932/
My question here is whether a democratically evolved redefinition of marriage acceptable?

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.