I like to think I am democratic and fair minded. I like to think I am fair to others and give them a fair hearing even when I don’t agree with them and I would hope others would do me the same courtesy. To be honest however there is only so much that any one person can take when others want to shove their world view down your throat.
I would have thought that when a group advocates for itself (whatever that right may be) that it would do so in such a way that it leaves others with the choice to draw their own conclusion about said group whether they agree or disagree and afterwards everyone behaves like reasonable human beings.
Of course history is full of examples where this isn’t the case Hitler wanted the Jews exterminated, the crusaders wanted everyone converted to Christianity at the point of the sword.; the Inquisition put on a huge BBQ for all the nonbelievers. There seems to be a pattern through history of one group wanting to force everyone else to see things their way!
In Australia one group who advocates marriage equality for same sex people have a new and very innovative way of getting people on board. Firstly anyone who disagreed with them was identified as a bigot. Secondly any negative responses or objections were seen as hate speech. Now, just in the last few days they came up with a new way to identify all the dissenters. Certain groups and employers asked everyone to wear a little black ring on their finger to show support for same sex marriage.
What is ironic is that same sex couples already have the same rights as married couples under common law. In other words the law doesn’t discriminate between a heterosexual or gay couples when it comes to relationships. If the relationship breaks down everything is divided equally, if there are adopted children or children form a prior relationship the court decides on custody and access if the two parties can’t come to agreement. In the case where one partner dies the law doesn’t discriminate where a will has been put in place and it is generally only nasty vindictive people who have the gall to challenge that will.
All that being said those who militantly advocate same sex marriage don’t want a level playing field. They don’t want open discussion or debate nor do they want anyone with an opposing voice to be heard. No they want to ram their ideology down every one else throat. What is sad is that as soon as any group invoke the argument that they are misunderstood victims the Government and many media outlets jump on board and start handing out the tissues. In other words it isn’t about rational discussion its about manipulating the public emotionally through misinformation or no information at all.
What is really tragic is how this seeps into our education system. It isn’t about teaching choices through offering reasoned alternatives; reason doesn’t even play a role. It is about guilt tripping people in to accepting a world view that otherwise others would not have even considered. To use an example of how this works is to look at the nationalist rhetoric that the Nazi machine used to rally hatred towards the Jews that they were subhuman, inferior and to blame for every thing that had gone wrong. Add to this that Hitler used the argument that the German people were superior both racially and intellectually to the Jews and Gypsies they exterminated.
When we look at the intellectual landscape today do we ever stop and think about how we are subtly emulating or mirroring the very same attitude and tactics that the Nazi’s used only not to the point where people are taken into gas chambers? It’s not just the same sex advocates doing this it seems everyone who wants to be heard over the myriad of voices and ideologies is doing the same thing.
How on earth did the human race get to the point that it no longer argues from facts and reason to arrive at a conclusion on any subject matter? Today it doesn’t matter what the facts are (if there are any) it’s all about feelings it all about being accepted or your individual choices validated and not having one’s feelings hurts. What If I want to be a 10.000 year English Willow tree do I get to have my self determined identity validated? J.R.R. Tolkien validated walking talking trees in the Lord of the rings they were old weren’t they? I’m not harming anyone by wanting to be an Ent I just want to be acknowledged and have a square foot of park land to myself where I can put down roots! Seriously no one would accept that as a rational position to argue from but I can manipulate the hell out of that argument simply by claiming your nonacceptance of it is doing me emotional harm.
Folks welcome to the modern way of thinking it doesn’t have to be rational or true it simply has to be believed and others have to accept it so you aren’t discriminated against. This is the stuff of fairy tales and make believe that I used to practice as a child; the difference is that I knew I was suspending truth that it wasn’t real and that to think it was could harm myself or others.
How did we get to here from where the Greek philosophers were? Okay, so we know that even the Greeks had some strange ideas; their empirical arguments about the world and reality were at times subjective but they did put them to the test. And that is the point! They put their arguments to the test they allowed themselves to be peer reviewed they let themselves and their ideas be scrutinised…. the were willing to be proven wrong.
Mostly when a group wants a voice today they don’t want their views challenged they want to impose their views on others by vilifying their opposition even if that opposition is imaginary. Imaginary??? Yes! Group advocates often use the tactic that they are misunderstood marginalised and victimised… based on what statistics? The other argument is to say a majority of people want such and such or believe such and such but never produce the data that says it. Next is the argument that such and such is commonly held to be true by the majority of people… How do they know this?
Then there are the guilt bombs. The guilt bombs are used to shut down the opposition. This is where the opposition are mis-characterised or made to be a caricature of their real selves kind if like what cartoonists do when they satirise popular figures. It is meant to shame the opposition, discredit them or malign them so that no one take them seriously. Shaming is the biggest part so that the victim can argue that their treatment is unfair and that everyone should rally to them. The hope is that anyone opposing the group will be shut down and be made on outcast.
So is it unfair for me to label the same sex advocates as being militant and Nazi like? I liken their tactics to shovelling manure; Same manure different shovel. That is not to say they don’t have the right to ask for the marriage act to be changed in Australia of course they do! The problem is I am yet to hear or see them do anything that would make me want to change my mind. If anything they are shooting down their own argument by their action.
They accuse us of being hate filled, closed minded, intolerant bigots… think for a moment about how they are setting the example and showing us all how tolerance and acceptance works; think about how reasonable and rational their accusations and arguments are!