There’s no question that those who advocate for abortion have no chance of changing the Republican Party platform to reflect their views. What’s not as clear to enough people is that the same applies to the supporters of so-called “homosexual rights” and so-called “homosexual marriage.”
A couple of individuals recently in the news with a different view on this topic are only known for their relationship with losing GOP 2008 presidential candidate John McCain. Both a McCain campaign advisor and McCain’s daughter went on the record demonstrating their confusion about behavior. Despite what they might think, the future will not see a Republican Party that views human sexual impulses just as the Democratic Party does.
I continue to be amazed at how some otherwise intelligent people can be slow to see the importance of morality and the fragility of the social fabric. In a nutshell, a person’s aberrant sexual impulses in most cases shouldn’t be the topic of public policy debates.
Those who think a person should be primarily identified by how they like to have sex should hire psychiatrists, not lobbyists. We’ll know we’ve achieved a more tolerant society when the true definition of the word “tolerance” is understood by those advancing the immature notion that anyone should care about another’s predilections.
If you want me to know about your sex life – whether you’re a polygamist, into polyamory, “swinging,” or most of the other types of “orientations” listed here, you can bet you’re life I’m going to be discriminating against you.
I’m certainly not going to hire you – regardless of what Big Brother might want to mandate via some nutty “civil rights” statute. For example, if you like to brag that your orientation includes many “conquests” – you’ve got issues, to say the least. I’ve got a business to run that’s more important than your arrested development.
If you want respect – don’t tell me about your sex life. Don’t march in homosexual sex “pride” parades. Don’t join political organizations (like the “Log Cabin” Republicans) that have as their only real agenda the societal acceptance of unhealthy sexual activities.
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy should apply to all of polite society. What we know from the Dennis Hastert–Mark Foley episode, however, is that if you’re running for office, voters need to know the truth.
If you’ve crossed over into allowing your mind to be confused about the natural design of anatomy, you can’t be trusted to make good judgments on the enormous issues that impact the social fabric.
Another simple concept that logically follows is that we can’t expect to have a good economy with a bad culture. Civilization depends upon the right of free people to make judgments about – and discriminate against – what they see as ill-advised “lifestyle choices.”
There is no wall separating morality and economics – since human beings are the engine of a market economy.
Lately, a few good national opinion pieces have been written on the connection between morality and economics.
I’ve already written here about this one by Steven Malanga: “Can Free-Market Values Survive In An Increasingly Secular World?“
Earlier this month, economist Walter Williams wrote “Our Problem is Immorality.”
In it, he said –
“Most of our nation’s great problems, including our economic problems, have as their root decaying moral values. Whether we have the stomach to own up to it or not, we have become an immoral people left with little more than the pretense of morality.”
Earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal, writer John C. Bogle, penned “A Crisis of Ethic Proportions,” where he noted that self-interest has gotten out of hand:
“It created a bottom-line society in which success is measured in monetary terms. Dollars became the coin of the new realm. Unchecked market forces overwhelmed traditional standards of professional conduct, developed over centuries.
The result is a shift from moral absolutism to moral relativism. We’ve moved from a society in which ‘there are some things that one simply does not do’ to one in which ‘if everyone else is doing it, I can too.’ Business ethics and professional standards were lost in the shuffle.”
Last year, David Cameron, Conservative Party leader in the United Kingdom, said this:
“I think the time has come for me to speak out about something that has been troubling me for a long time. I have not found the words to say it sensitively. And then I realised, that is the whole point.
We as a society have been far too sensitive. In order to avoid injury to people’s feelings, in order to avoid appearing judgmental, we have failed to say what needs to be said. We have seen a decades-long erosion of responsibility, of social virtue, of self-discipline, respect for others, deferring gratification instead of instant gratification.
Instead we prefer moral neutrality, a refusal to make judgments about what is good and bad behavior, right and wrong behavior. Bad. Good. Right. Wrong. These are words that our political system and our public sector scarcely dare use any more…
There is a danger of becoming quite literally a de-moralized society, where nobody will tell the truth anymore about what is good and bad, right and wrong. That is why children are growing up without boundaries, thinking they can do as they please, and why no adult will intervene to stop them – including, often, their parents. If we are going to get any where near solving some of these problems, that has to stop.”
Cameron (much like Daniel Hannan did in this video) is saying the kinds of things we need to hear from elected Republicans in the U.S. The relative silence of our GOP leaders only makes it easier for the friends of John McCain mentioned above to dominate the debate.
Any Republican advocating for making the GOP as liberal as the Dems are on the social issues should give up and switch parties. They should devote their energies to trying to make the Democrats more conservative on issues like spending and school reform.
Lastly, any Republican who thinks so-called “homosexual marriage” (or “civil unions,” which is the same thing) is “moderate,” I’d like to hear your argument for why the line should be drawn there. You know polygamy and polymory are next, as are “rights” for “transgendered” marriages. Oh, and make sure you include in your argument how you think that Gender Identity Disorder should no longer be considered a mental illness.
©2009 John Francis Biver