http://www.catholicworldreport.com/..._a_cautionary_tale_for_american_liberals.aspx
The tone of this article is a little partisan (to say the least) but then I dont pretend to understand the US kultur kampf too much but I think its interesting.
On the topic of redefining marriage, I'm not for that, I dont like the messing with the english language which is involved in that, it smacks of all the things Orwell wrote about in 1984, particularly the afternote/appendix on newspeak, doublespeak etc.
I'm not opposed to civil partnerships and the legal rights and recognition they confer, I think its important to keep a distinction, simply because there objectively is one, and I dont really understand why gay rights advocates dont like the idea. I've got theories though but they generally get me dismissed as a bigot.
Although what interests me about this is that in the UK the right wing and nationalist parties, like their equivalents in Europe who can be more racist or ethno-nationalist like the French National Front, complain that the EU is a centralising regime which aims at moral and cultural homogenisation, specifically validating a lot of painfully liberal cultural norms and opinions. This appears to be anything but what they have been scare mongering about. Its a move which has been respectful of diversity and national legislators, it seems to me like an example of good federalism and I think that may be the gist of the article for American readers too, although they have an acknowledged issue with attempts to redefine the meaning of marriage too.
What do you think? I dont want to get into the discussion of redefining marriage so much, although I accept some people might want to talk about that, but how human rights legal battles can respect diverse political opinions instead of requiring a homogenisation or culture struggle.
The tone of this article is a little partisan (to say the least) but then I dont pretend to understand the US kultur kampf too much but I think its interesting.
On the topic of redefining marriage, I'm not for that, I dont like the messing with the english language which is involved in that, it smacks of all the things Orwell wrote about in 1984, particularly the afternote/appendix on newspeak, doublespeak etc.
I'm not opposed to civil partnerships and the legal rights and recognition they confer, I think its important to keep a distinction, simply because there objectively is one, and I dont really understand why gay rights advocates dont like the idea. I've got theories though but they generally get me dismissed as a bigot.
Although what interests me about this is that in the UK the right wing and nationalist parties, like their equivalents in Europe who can be more racist or ethno-nationalist like the French National Front, complain that the EU is a centralising regime which aims at moral and cultural homogenisation, specifically validating a lot of painfully liberal cultural norms and opinions. This appears to be anything but what they have been scare mongering about. Its a move which has been respectful of diversity and national legislators, it seems to me like an example of good federalism and I think that may be the gist of the article for American readers too, although they have an acknowledged issue with attempts to redefine the meaning of marriage too.
What do you think? I dont want to get into the discussion of redefining marriage so much, although I accept some people might want to talk about that, but how human rights legal battles can respect diverse political opinions instead of requiring a homogenisation or culture struggle.