Fascinating interview on the Dennis Prager Radio Show with the author of “The Suicide of Reason,” Lee Harris.
Harris, a self-described “gay man” who dedicates his recent book to his “partner of twenty years,” tells how the orgins of Islam, be it the origins of an inner-worldly political community, were and are, out of necessity, violent. He argues that the very generosity of liberal values, when confronted by those who do not share such values, works to undermine the very security of Western liberal society.
Near the end of the interview, Harris shares why he is an opponent of same-sex marriage. He makes a point that I have argued here many times: traditional marriage is the very definition of marriage. Any partnership between two-persons of the same-sex is not, by definition, marriage; there’s no substantive equivalency.
In agreement with anyone of a conservative temperament, Harris argues that intellectuals should be highly wary of tinkering with basic traditional conventions, conventions that give Western society a basic ordering structure, from whence reason emerges.
This is an excellent point!
Once you start ignoring basic common sense differences between men and women, and basic differences between heterosexual and homosexual human relationships, you are no longer as in touch with the ordering structure of reality as you once were. And when common sense reason starts to flag in one area, such unreason is demonstratably contagious and liable to spread. Case in point: once “sexual orientation” was read into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and accepted as standard lingo in speaking of ALL persons, juridically and very narrowly, same-sex marriage became a more amenable, seemingly logical, permutation of Canadian jurisprudence.
Harris tells how he grew up a Southern Baptist and has a great deal of respect for many of “those people.” He says the very fact that he is tolerated as a gay man and allowed to live freely is a great accomplishment of civilization, especially when radical Islam would have him killed in the worst possible way. One can’t expect perfection from Western civilization, but rather be aware of how much better it is than the alternatives and WHY it is ABLE to be better than the alternatives.
Definitely an interview worth checking out!
'beenaroundtheblock wrote:
David Warren often cites Lee Harris. We need to listen to gay people like Lee Harris who, although he lives in a same-sex relationship, is intelligent and honest enough to admit that it’s not a “marriage.”
He’s right. Once you start tinkering with societal conventions–which are important because, over millennia, THEY WORK–you open a Pandora’s Box. You never know, then, what’s going to be charging around the next corner.
Western democratic freedoms allow gay couples to live in relative peace and harmony, even if many people aren’t comfortable with these arrangements. When you begin to legislate what most people know in their heart of hearts, deep in the recesses of their thought processes, is simply not compatible with reason or social conventions which have served us well for thousands of years, and all Hell can break loose.
I suspect that gay couples are in more danger now that society has loosened its moral and ethical codes than they were when the policy was, basically, in live and let live, don’t ask/don’t tell mode.
The reason I say that is because as soon as we have no common bonds, no common moral or ethical codes, to act as glue to keep Western Civilization together, we’re all at much greater risk of being infiltrated and overwhelmed by “the enemy,” which at the moment seems to be radical Islam. They’re have a great advantage over us, in that they are in agreement about what is right and what is wrong and they don’t hesitate to act on their convictions.
The West is losing its convictions and it is going to be, or already is, a huge Achilles Heel.
Posted on 26-Aug-07 at 11:41 am | Permalink
Patrick Ross wrote:
One has to be very aware of what they mean when they refer to the “ordering characteristics” of society.
But it’s important to acknowledge differences, as opposed to ignoring them.
Posted on 26-Aug-07 at 2:14 pm | Permalink
'beenaroundtheblock wrote:
Patrick, until the Charter and the activist judiciary and Liberal government’s legislating the legality of arrangements with which the majority of Canadians were clearly uncomfortable and in disagreement, differences were acknowledged. Perhaps not overtly–a position many homosexual persons would prefer today–but in the rough and tumble of everyday life.
I don’t think there’s a family that didn’t have relatives or friends who were homosexual, or a church to which gay individuals and couples were regular congregants, back in the days before we were all told, in no uncertain terms by the Supreme Court and our Parliament, that we’d BETTER make way in our lives for these arrangements–and if we didn’t, we would be fined, discomfitted, and/or forced to be “re-educated” if we had problems with the new dispensation.
Astoundingly, many gay activists have accused the church of being discriminatory towards gays, when, in fact, the Christian Church has always had more than its share of homosexuals in both the clergy and the laity.
In my experience, gay people were/are not only accepted but valued for the many gifts–liturgical and musical–they brought/bring to their communities.
Differences need to be acknowledged and are not, to our common peril. But differences shoved down people’s throats in undemocratic coups do no favours to either side of a debate.
Posted on 26-Aug-07 at 2:48 pm | Permalink
anon wrote:
You guys are still talking about this?
Exactly what IS the legal difference between a civil union and a gay marriage?
Posted on 27-Aug-07 at 6:04 am | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
Civil unions should not be given equal capacity to adopt children as a married man and woman.
Posted on 27-Aug-07 at 8:32 am | Permalink
anon wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up; for me, and for posterity.
Good thing we have legal gay marriage, then.
Posted on 27-Aug-07 at 9:35 am | Permalink
Clay wrote:
The term “traditional marriage” is used so often, but who’s “thousands of years of traditions” are you basing this on? Marriage has changed and evolved constantly, with each culture and race having different customs and beleifs.
If you want to keep marriage traditional then we should be legalizing polygamy, arranged marriages, dowries, the trading of daughters for sheep, the slaughtering of wives to make way for new, better wives who will bear male heirs…
Making same sex marriage legal in Canada has not led the hell-fire fundamentaists warned of, and I have yet to see one example of how the fabric of our society is tearing apart at the seams.
Posted on 27-Aug-07 at 9:45 am | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
Marriage, as understood in our historical lineage, of say at least the last two thousand years, is between one man and one woman. Polygamy hasn’t been the norm in the West for a long time.
Two dude marriage is a radical break with any previous conception of marriage; so radical in fact that it makes the qualifier of “marriage” incoherent.
Gay marriage is as legitimate as polygamy and polygamy isn’t legitimate; but at least polygamy appreciates that marriage is heterosexual.
Now that gay marriage is legal in Canada, the question gay marriage proponents need to answer is, why not polygamy?
Posted on 27-Aug-07 at 3:23 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
“Now that gay marriage is legal in Canada, the question gay marriage proponents need to answer is, why not polygamy?”
Actually, we don’t need to answer that at all since it was never a part of our rhetoric. Nice try.
Posted on 27-Aug-07 at 5:25 pm | Permalink
De Leestafel: The Suicide of Reason (boekbespreking) wrote:
[…] Islam’s Threat to the WestLee HarrisEen recentie door Bart Jan Spruyt waarin hij vol lof is over de homosexuele Lee Harris:Niet wij veranderen de moslims, maar de moslims veranderen ons. Maar er is hoop, als de […]
Posted on 02-Sep-07 at 1:27 pm | Permalink