When SSMers propose an alternative to the marriage idea, they also assume that they can appropriate the word, marriage, to name the alternative idea and, thus, they hope to make it impossible for society to talk about, think about, and show preference for the social institution of marriage.
They seek to appropriate all that arises from that foundational social institution; they do not show how their SSM idea has the merit for souch a blatant switch; they do not feel they need to justify the replacement of the marriage idea with their SSM idea. They just arbitarily claim the word, marriage, and its special status; but they do not offer the reasoning that would sustain that special status, much less justify the status in the first place.
They hope, I suppose that society will be hoodwinked long enough to lose the very thing that SSM would piggyback on. Once it is lost, the SSM idea will be all that is left to support the special status of marriage; and the SSM idea is just not up to the job.
When the ability to name something is taken away (in this case through the heavy hand of Government moved for the sake of identity politics), we lose the ability to even think about that now un-named thing.
This is a deliberate strategy of the SSM campaign, of course. Hence their desperate and angry and intolerant demand that they and only they control the language of the contest between the marriage idea and the SSM idea. Indeed, they balk at the very notion that there is an SSM idea. Apparently this same-sex type of relationship has always been a type of marriage and society did not know it until now.
The absurdity of the homosexual emphasis is plain as day. As absurd as that emphasis is, it is far more absurd to lose marriage to it. The hawkers of gay identity politics are not really looking at marriage for they are motivated by the gut-level desire to assert the supremacy of gay identity politics over all of society -- marriage being the current political and cultural vehicle they'd hijack.
0 comments,:
Post a Comment