Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Other people's values

Still on the subject of the Liberal Party's folly, here is something from C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man:
[Reformers] will be found to hold, with complete uncritical enthusiasm, the whole system of values which happened to be in vogue among moderately educated [persons] of the professional classes. Their scepticism about values is on the surface: it is for use on other people's values; about the values current in their own thought they are not nearly sceptical enough. And this phenomenon is very usual. A great many of those who 'debunk' traditional or (as they would say) 'sentimental' values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process.
That brings me to a post at The Western Standard that I'd like to echo:
What will the Conservatives do once same-sex marriage is law? Will they go so far as to actually fight to have it repealed? After all, it's one thing to oppose the granting of a "right" in the first place. It's a touch more extreme a position to actually advocate stripping people of those "rights". Are the Tories really willing to go that far? In a word: Yes. The Tories say they plan to continue to campaign against same-sex marriage until they successfully repeal it. To people who love the Tories but hate their same-sex stance, and wish they'd get over it already, that's bad news. But the Conservatives know that same-sex is their winningest issue in a long time.
We bloggers forget that we are NOT representative of the population at large far too often. As Intelligentsia, we are far more prone to give in to various forms of gnosticism, divorcing ideas from the logistic considerations that normally drive people who spend their time working with things. Most of these people don't blog; but they might be persuaded to vote. This is about as settled as abortion, which 30 years on, is still contentious - as bad policy and bad law should be. Just as I go to post, I see that Sinsiter Thoughts has asked me for an opinion. To no one's surprise, I'm very disappointed. I'm also concerned. I want it fixed, but I do not want any ugliness from either side. I have always tried to show compassion and concern where gay issues are concerned, but I do not see how this can work. The needs of a gay pair are so different from that of monogamous straights that I think a customized institution is the way to go. With a one size fits all approach no one will be well served. Look at it like this; people pay big bucks for customized things that suit them better than a mass made product. Why is this principle called discrimination when applied to SSM?

No comments: