First I would like to say thank you to gaj for taking the time to visit my site and offer his thoughtful opinion. I would like to take a moment to respond to his comments, but first I need to make something clear. Those of us who take on labels such as conservative or liberal agree on many issues in our respective groups. However, not all conservatives or liberals agree on EVERYTHING. As a species, man is too varied and complicated for us to see each issue, thought, or idea the same. I would dare to say that is a fact.
Now, when you look at the world around you and take even a cursory glance at the way nature, animals, and the universe at large work you will see that there are absolutes. The earth, sun, moon and planets move in predictable ways. Within the animal kingdom, animals relate to each other and their environments in ways that are consistent no matter where they are. But somehow mankind has come to believe that because we are capable of thought and independent action there are no absolutes for us.
From a scientific standpoint homosexuality makes no sense. That is not to say that homosexual people are not deserving of love and respect, but only that when it comes to the continuing of the human race, homosexuality is not conducive to our survival. The advent of sperm banks and in vitro fertilization don’t negate that truth.
So, it would seem that we have an issue of absolutes. If homosexuality is natural, then why isn’t it supported by nature. Each person has the freedom to choose the way they want to live, but because a person says they are homosexual doesn’t mean that society should sanction what is clearly not supported by nature and give it the same level of approval as heterosexual (nature supported) marriage (men and women have screwed that up as well).
Please stay with me because I am trying to get a lot into a little post. To answer the question posed by gaj which is “HOW one decides whether a tradition is flawed and oppressive” I would say there is no simple answer to that. Not every social and political movement is good. Our opinions are extremely varied and we won’t all agree on anything. For me that way is the bible.
And I understand your problem with the bible. I don’t know if you have read it personally, but I do know that if someone tortures the bible long enough they can make it confess to anything. People have time and again taken the bible and a verse here and there and used it to support their distorted views. I prefer to take it as a whole, rather than build a doctrine or cult on an isolated passage or story. I read it daily and I take it at its word.
Here is the problem, as I see it, with liberalism. Where does it end? Liberalism OVER TIME will lead to an “anything goes” society which is good for no one. I’m about to say something that would seem offensive on the surface, but if you follow me to the end I think you will understand where I’m trying to go.
No matter how heinous something is, there are those who would say that thing is right. Pedophiles are an excellent example. They have networks and organizations that have actually lobbied to give children the right to consent to sex. These people, despicable as they are, think that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation” (see http://www.nambla.org/).
Here’s the problem with liberalism. If man is free to live his life anyway he wants without any absolute truths (that is things that are absolutely right or wrong), how are we going to deal with pedophiles when they are able to pool their resources and petition the government for equal rights which is going to happen eventually. I just hope I’m not here to see it. Are we now trampling their civil rights as they would have us believe? Most of us would say we are not and they are criminals, but not long ago, homosexuality was viewed in a similar light. That is to say it was considered aberrant behavior. Where do we draw the line if there is no line?
Man has absolutes. Man has free will. The role of government is to take our opposing views and create a society we can flourish in. Gaj, hope I answered your particular concerns and I hope you will continue to read and comment here. Thank you for coming by and giving me my post for today. 
July 21, 2008 at 7:02 am
This is a thoughtful, and thus thought-provoking blog! I hope you stay with it. I’m just going to address two points (since this is your blog, not mine!) that jumped out at me from this. The first is that marriage for homosexuals shouldn’t be sanctioned because it is not supported by nature and isn’t conducive to our survival. There are actually examples in nature of homosexuality (especially among birds). But also, in nature, there are few examples of monogamy—they are the exception rather than the rule. So nature has very little ’support’ for marriage at all. I also have a problem with rejecting homosexual marriage on the basis of it not continuing our species…does that mean that women or men who are medically incapable of reproduction should not marry?
My other point relates to where liberalism stops, and the pedophilia example. I think that most people agree that children do not have the decision-making capacity or life experience to make choices about such relationships with adults, just as we don’t think they should drink, drive, vote, marry, or serve in the military until a certain age. With marriage, I think most people–liberal and conservative–agree that it is between consenting, legally independent, adults. Thus the only difference is whether we should allow the government to be in charge of which consenting adults can pair up and which can’t (conservatives might tout laissez faire economics, but apparently this doesn’t extend to marriage). You mention that homosexuality used to be viewed in a similar criminal/aberrant way (and I somewhat disagree…homosexuality is represented fairly extensively in art, literature, and historical documents, which signals at least partial acceptance by society). Again, I go back to the example of society’s treatment of women, or slaves–an independent, educated woman used to be seen as aberrant; a slave escaping from his master was seen as criminal. Why are those evolutions in belief okay, but not others? As you said, the Bible can be variously interpreted by people to be for or against women’s rights, for or against homosexuality, for or against slavery, for or against eating pork…
Peace!