In the recent weeks, here in the neck of woods, transgender issues have received national spotlight as a result of one person’s struggle for sex change. In today’s paper, a columnist writes
So it makes sense to oppose the LGBTI agenda, not because we hate the individuals espousing it before us, but because we love the families we are protecting behind us.
which is an appeal to intolerance towards others based on claims written in an old goat herders narrative. He writes elsewhere
The moment we ignore the biblical admonition, “male and female he created them”, together with its genetic, anatomical, psychological, spiritual and societal manifestations
It is evident here, that his objections are based on his religion. He appeals to a slippery slope that is simply non existent. He writes
then nothing is left to halt the slippery slope that compels us all to ignore sexual differences in any personal or social reality.
There is no slippery slope. Allowing the LGBT to live their lives and at the same time enjoy the same protections from government as heterosexual couples get doesn’t threaten your job, your work or your family.
The author of the article, though appearing to be well read, appears to me to have missed the points in some of the works he claims to have read. Take the case of Plato’s republic. In this philosophical discourse, Plato presents the ideal state. It is utopian only to the extent that such an ideal does not exist but it doesn’t mean that members of our race can’t aspire to such a state. Unless our author has a problem with aspiring to ideals, I don’t see how Plato fits in with his bigotry.
In 1984, Orwell tells the story of a state where big brother monitors your every movement and where your neighbor can spy on you. Dissent isn’t allowed. There isn’t room for individual expression or even free thought. Whereas, the world has not gone to this level, it appears that it is not far off what with reports of governments monitoring private communication?