Don Wycliff
Posted on 07/10/2004 4:43:29 AM PDT by unspun
From the Public Editor
|
|
Don Wycliff |
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
They don't even see it when it stares them in the face.
I'd encourage everyone to read the whole essay (use www.bugmenot.com for registration, if needed). It's quite remarkable. Then write the gent and thank him, as I did.
Dan
From: "Arlen Williams" arlenwilliams@unspun.info
To: dwycliff@tribune.com [note: and to "Voice of the People" - letters to the editor]
Cc: Peter LaBarbera, Kathy Valente, letters@illinoisleader.com
Sent: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:19:07 -0500
Subject: "Challenging the media's `pro-gay' tenor"
"First, however, they need to persuade us in the media to put their arguments into the public arena."
(referring to those who would preserve the conditions of marriage and family, from "Challenging the media's `pro-gay' tenor") http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0407080270jul08,1,4581710.column?coll=chi-news-col
How ludicrous, Mr. Wycliff, with all due respect.
You just get through making reference to the observation that the Tribune, yea the press overall, automatically complies with the strategy of the pro-homosexual agenda to throw out millennia of precedent of the meanings of "marriage" and "family," then, like a man climbing a cliff and arriving at the top edge only to loose his grip, you fall right back into the deep. You revert to inferring that a burden of persuasion belongs with those who would prevent this massive, plate tectonic change -- with those who instead would stay our institutions upon their foundations, the validity of which are self-evident in the very maintenance and development of our civilization and culture.
What grounds do you have to say that such a burden lays on the side of those who would merely maintain the actual, legal, functional, and time-proven definitions of the most fundamental institution of society, before your company relates their principles?
Which side in such a circumstance should actually bear the burden of proof?
Suppose "enlightened" university professors, press gatekeepers, and entertainment power-brokers began to pronounce that marriage should not be restricted to human-human relationships, but that human-animal relationships should qualify. Perhaps they point to anecdotal cases of humans and dogs who are deeply devoted to each other (and nevermind what happens behind closed bedroom doors, that is "none of government's business" afterall). Further, let us say that a political movement stems from this, for changing the definition of marriage so as to include human-animal relationships. With whom does the burden of proving that case belong? Or, should their new arguments simply and summarily be adopted by society as de facto norm and law?
But is that example obviously absurd? Please do not misunderstand to think I bring up this hypothetical scenario due to the "slippery slope" argument (which is a valid test, and must be a part of analyzing ramifications). No, I do so to try to give you a viscerally felt boost out of subjective bias, to climb to a perspective of objectively, in order to see the dynamics involved in pronouncing the very epistemology and ontology of this most basic societal matter changed by decree.
So, please review with whom it is that the burden of articulating, testing and proving this case belongs -- the burden of "persuading us in the media," among numerous other tasks.
You also write, "One personal observation: After talking at some length with LaBarbera and Valente, I was surprised to discover that their arguments are not essentially religious. That is, they do not require that one accept their faith in order to believe their argument."
Why would you presume that Christian conservatives would demand that one must adopt a particular religion, in order to maintain American, almost universal, standards for marital and family relations? And why would you presume, as your own writing here infers, that arguments against special privileges for homosexual pairs are predominantly religious in nature? (And suppose they were? Is it that someone has the right to determine that only arguments not informed by revealed truth and theology are to be considered?)
So, what do your answers to these questions reveal about your personal presuppositions and the public position you claim for them, as gatekeeper of what is related in public reports and how it is related?
Get back on the climb, Mr. Wyclliff, if you please and do the human ecology a favor.
Highest regards,
Arlen Williams
West Chicago, IL
The 'argument' against homosexuality, or rather personal behavior and/or activist promotion, which tend to co-exist, is a religious argument. It has to be. It is the thorn in the side of such 'utopians'. That's how God prefers. And the history of the nation has been one to implore the polity to rely upon a Protestant, and even Catholic (I happen to be Catholic), sense of morality in the formation of public policy. Washington's farewell, almost a classic in American literature, is clear (and he was supposedly a free-mason).
Of course that same pervasive social 'institutionaries', functionaries, 'apparatchiks' (?), who oppose the Bush campaign and virtually everything about the Bush Presidency, save for his overspending and turn to liberalism in other ways, promote in every imaginable venue the steady din of 'gay rights', whatever their form. Faced with the establishment, or rather the liberal establishment, itself, many surrender. You can't fight city hall.
There's another view. The beast is always the most angry, dangerous and obnoxious just before it perishes. The din from the 'get Bush' establishment is defeaning, today. They also promote 'gay rights', of whatever sort. There will necessarily be a backlash. Might it come in November - or is that still too soon?
The Tribune is too smug for me. And Wycliff is too smart by half in trying to deny his bias. The Tribune is also run be Marianne Lipinsky who is a 74 grad from the University of Michigan. Radical liberalism is just below the surface at that paper, IMHO.
Oh, I don't know about that. I've been arguing against all aspects of homosexuality for a long time and I don't recall ever using a religous argument. 
It's very costly to be homosexual.
Take medical care for one.
They are the ones pushing for socialized medicine so we will pay for their deviance.
No thanks.
Whether that's a cause or a sign really doesn't matter. The two events are related. That, right there, if nothing else. . .
I say it's a mistake to make it solely a religious argument. The religious argument won't prevent civil unions which is in fact marriage (for unbelievers, you could say), and will do the same damage if infiltrated by the deviant crowd.
I imagine there are few secularists against gay "marriage" (we MUST come up with a new term), but there are in fact many secular reasons not to approve of such an arrangment. One of the "strongest" arguments is that homosexuality is natural, therefore, good. I don't believe that for a minute. I believe it's the end product of abuse or neglect, combined with the individual's personality and perceptions of said treatment. Other abuse-fostering activities that are illegal: prostitution, drugs, and child molestation.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right, granted to those best equipped by nature to create families and carry on the human race. Plus, of course, you can't get a driver's license without passing minimum requirements, for the good of society and safety. Same thing here.
Interesting that gay Catholics feel entitled to receive Communion.
Last week it was revealed in the Arizona Republic that two homosexual pedophiles had lured 30 teenagers for sex by way of internet chat rooms and they were all likely now infested with HIV.
You would think the kids would know better than to indulge in such reckless behavior, but then, on reflection, who would have told them it was reckless?
Not the media, they promote homosexuality as "normal" so where would these kids have got their warning? The AZ Republic never used the words Gay, Homosexual or pedophile in their report and never links the lifestyle to anything negative.
- Just another 30 children sacrificed at the altar of political correctness...
Excellent letter, unspun! Thank you for sharing it!
And we wonder how many of them simply don't see, wilfully refuse to see, or just deny that they see, for effect.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Which side in such a circumstance should actually bear the burden of proof?
What is remarkable about Wycliff is the fact that he is black . . . and those with that racial characteristic were denied citizenship and federally protected 'rights' until the passage of the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act.
The government had to create a new word for Citizen when they wrote the amendment because the word 'Citizen' was already defined and it excluded the black (and other) race.
The question is, why didn't the courts -- or congress, or even the president just issue a simple proclamation stating that the word 'Citizen' would henceforth be re-defined to include freed slaves instead of passing an amendment to the Constitution which included a different word to define slave citizenship and the black race?
The answer, of course, is that they knew they would be destroying the rule of law if they assumed they had the power to arbitrarily RE-DEFINE the word, "Citizen," (upper case 'C.') That was a slippery slope they wanted to stay a far distance from.
So most of my arguments on this topic are focused on that one principle. And delighted to say, since being the first (or at least one of the first) to use that approach, many others in government and the various media are recognizing that a concurrent issue has emerged in this battle. And that issue is the destruction of the rule of law by the judiciary itself -- which is arbitrarily attempting to RE-DEFINE the word, 'marriage' -- a word that is already legally and socially defined.
I think it is redundant for congress or any state to attempt to pass an amendment certifying the definition of a word that is already certified. To do so, at least in this case, would be leaving the homosexual community without a voice and a feeling of being dis-enfranchised. And you know how ugly things can get once a group of people have that feeling, regardless of whether or not it's justifed.
So my solution to this is for the homosexual community to press for an amendment that would prevent them from feeling dis-enfranchised. Let them create their own word to define their relationship and include it in a proposed amendment that would qualify for the protection of the Civil Rights Act -- letting the WHOLE population having a say in the matter with their vote. If their cause is just, it will pass. If not, it will fail, and ALL the people will have spoken.
If it is done this way, the rule of law will be secure and the purity of the word, 'marriage' will remain unsullied and undefiled.
Good and valid points. My own approach was to commend him on admitting bias within his own paper, and to ask whether anything would actually change. The approaches are complementary.
Dan
Heh. Good one. It appears we are the living sequel. If we snooze on this, we'll wake up staked to the ground with a bunch of gnomes pouring over us looking for sex in all the wrong places.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.