Let's start with Morality/Immorality.
If you make a Moral Claim you have to cite the Moral Law or Code you're using to make the Moral Judgement otherwise its just an opinion. A personal leaning or opinion in itself has no moral content nor any binding aspect at all. Not binding whatsoever, it's a personal thing...like pineapple should never be on Pizza and Hazelnut Coffee is all kinds of wrong, maybe, maybe not...personal opinion.
Point in case Animal Liberations claim animal production and the consumption of meat is immoral. By what standard, what moral code are they using to make that claim?
Their premise generally starts to fold because it's a mix of cherry picked aspects from a number of non disclosed Eastern religions mixed in with items from philosophy. Speciesism for example is from philosophy not science. It infers rights upon an animal & yet won't say who created these rights, who has what authority to bestow them and how on earth not doing so is immoral. It's an entirely hollow bluff that's completely & utterly intellectually bankrupt.
Now seeing Judaeo-Christian faiths are the most common in Australia, throughout Australia's history we'll use that for the religious/moral view.
Christians tend to not make the moral argument on eating meat. The Bible is very clear all creeping things, all animals are put here for us to use or consume. A Christian might cite those Bible passages but rarely do if ever. Why?
Well firstly why would you?
If a Christian cites the Bible to make a moral judgement they're perfectly sound however they're doing what known as "Arguing From Authority" and that leads to failure. If I cited the Bible passages I would be citing an Authority that I follow but many other people may not. Other people may not recognise, respect or adhere to God's Word so it's pointless. It causes & entrenches two different sides to become set, polarised and opposing. Arguing from Authority rarely leads to consensus.
This is why even devout Christians should always use a secular argument not a religious one. There is nothing wrong with a Christian using their Scriptures to live their life but in a moral debate they'd be wise to use a secular set of reasonings if there's any chance of a wider agreement.
So is Homosexuality moral or immoral? Well if you want a moral context ask for one. A Christian or Muslim or Jew can give you one but otherwise remember a moral view cannot be sustained without a faith based moral code. So careful what you ask for.
Can a homosexual join a conservative party?
Yes & some do. So too can a devout Christian, Jew, Muslim, a Hindu, a pantheist, an agnostic, an atheist...
Is there a a secular position for homosexuality and people's view of it?
Yes.
Some people irrespective of their faith or lack of faith even will not be comfortable with homosexuality or left handedness or red hair or support of Collingwood Football Club or a liking for asparagus or "insert any other point of difference". You have to respect all others ability to form an opinion you may not like. That's "inclusive" and actually a Conservative value not a leftist one. From a slightly religious angle, its actually free will which is delivered by God.
Toughen up and live with it unless you're being persecuted. In some countries its stoning or thrown off buildings & yes that's disgraceful & unacceptable by any measure.
Being anti persecution is a Conservative value, making up your own mind on things is a Conservative value. Exercising your free will and not forcing others to conform to it...yes a Conservative Value. Respect other people's choices and defending the choices and rights of the individual is a Conservative value. Defending someone else's opposing view is a Conservative value.
Placing choice and rights of the individual as a priority...Conservative value.
Government serving the people, not people serving the government, yes a Conservative value.
Opposition to censoring the people, opposing the legislating away personal choices and rights, opposing the imposing of social leanings... Conservative value.
Now for the leftists in society, they will like to tell you a different version.
They won't touch on any other point except that homosexuality should be celebrated by those who want to & that Conservative parties are full of extreme right wing Religious zealots who will trample on your rights and preach hell & brimstone. That conservative means intolerance, bigotry & religious hate.
There maybe such people in Conservative parties but I haven't actually met them. I have met religious people who allow their religious perspective to spill over.
Personally I'm fine with religious members in a conservative party as long as the religious world view they hold is "on hold" and what is presented is the secular argument so a solution is actually possible.
I'm fine with anyone holding any religious faith they want, or not holding any at all. That freedom of choice is a Conservative value. Political landscape isn't a platform for either celebrating or demonising homosexuality, left handedness, red hair or support for the Collingwood Football Club.
If you're gay & join any political party I think you need to be able to cope with people exhibiting staggering indifference and possibly a preference to not knowing your sexual preference...many of us don't ask, don't know, don't care & frankly have bigger things on our mind than your private personal life. For some that might be difficult.
For the leftists, Identity Politics has been a boom time action. Its the vehicle to slot people into groups, set up battle fields, rouse the troops, stir people to action by using words like bigotry, intolerance and helps create a landscape where others not leftist can be demonised.
It is odd that in using 'bigotry & intolerance' as rousing catch cries they are themselves being bigoted & intolerant.
Where the major parties have unravelled of late is the increasing number of lefts & rights in say the Liberal Party & a decline in the number of the traditional conservatives. In say the Labor Party, an increasing number of lefts & rights and a falling away in the traditional "progressives".
If we got back to traditional basics of progressives vs conservatives there'd be less fighting and far less of the intolerant left and the intolerant right.
Now if someone asks me to make a moral judgement on something, different kettle of fish. I can, I would cite the moral code I follow to explain a moral context...if asked. But otherwise, no. I'd use the secular argument.
So those that feel they have the dilemma of wanting to join a Conservative Party and be gay...relax, despite what the left tell you, you can. But then the left have had a history of wanting to control who goes where and does what.
Then there's what seems like the big gotcha...
"So how come we never hear about people coming out in Conservative Parties, they're too scared of the persecution and bigotry aren't they?" Short answer, no you're being a bit silly.
Long answer, you're playing Identity Politics. Set a grouping, demonise one, defend the other & yell bigotry to avoid actual facts.
The real truth is very basic and maybe for some even more negative...the real truth is your sexuality is of no concern, interest or consequence to anyone else.
Conservative Party's view on your sexuality... STAGGERING INDIFFERENCE.
Now at some point someone states "separation of Church & State" is important. Fact is we have that, we do not have a theocracy nor a caliphate. They may mean don't "Argue from Authority" and in that respect, they're quite right. The flak Scott Morrison & others have copped due to being members of a church is wrong, un-Australian and highly intolerant. To my knowledge he has not cited chapter & verse from the Bible on any issue in his Parliamentary career.
No comments:
Post a Comment