The law of unintended consequences has been known to severely punish those who neglect to respect it.
In an article that ran in the Dallas Morning News recently, author Rod Dreher pointed out that activists trying to score points in the culture war have a unique responsibility to acknowledge the potential impact of their actions.
The January 23rd article entitled, Next Time, They Come For You, centered around an effort on the part of homosexual activists in California to use technology to identify the homes and businesses of individuals who financially supported Proposition 8, an amendment to the California Constitution that protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
By electronically cross-referencing donor lists with Google mapping software, these extremists created an interactive web page that allows the user to not only access the name and address of a donor, but also that person’s home pinpointed on a map, and overlays of that map on a satellite image of the donor’s city.
Dreher points out the obvious danger of publishing the names, addresses, and maps, by itemizing several examples of retaliation and intimidation by homosexual activists against individuals and businesses that supported Proposition 8. He goes on to explain the very real potential that the law of unintended consequences may in fact result in negative action against the homosexual community.
He warns, “It won’t be long before far-right radicals draw on publicly available data to create an online map to gay-rights supporters’ homes. How safe will gay folks in small towns feel if gay bashers are one click away from a map to their house?”
All of that is true. There is an inherent danger in providing committed homosexual radicals with driving directions to the front door of pro-marriage supporters, just as it would be no less inappropriate for pro-marriage activists to publish a similar map to the homes of known homosexuals. Still, the damage cuts deeper than the potential for physical harm to an individual donor.
In his conclusion, Dreher asserts that this willingness to misuse public information to punish individuals is a “vicious cultural bellwether.” He fears that the trend away from arguing issues and towards punishing individuals “rips apart a common understanding that makes it possible for us to live together in a diverse democracy.”
Here in Iowa, the lid is locked down and the heat is being turned up on the pressure-cooker that is the marriage debate. For now, the boiling emotions on both sides of the issue are more or less measured and civil, but sooner or later the Iowa Supreme Court will rule, and the lid may blow off.
There are several lessons that Iowa can learn from California on this issue. First, even residents of the most ideologically liberal states agree that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Second, the division caused by the concept of homosexual “marriage” does not go away with a court order or a constitutional amendment. Finally, if we sacrifice civility in the quest for ideological victory, we run the risk of sacrificing society itself.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Question:
Let's hypothetically say you couldn't use the Bible as a defense for your belief against homosexual rights and practices.
How would you argue that homosexuality runs the "risk of sacrificing society itself?"
Adam,
We can no more remove Biblical truth from our discussion of societal health than we could remove the concept of gravity from a discussion of physical science. You could discuss hypothetical scenarios all day long, but in the end Biblical truth remains just as does gravity.
Some point to the Netherlands and the negative impact on family structure that has resulted from widespread acceptance of homosexuality. Others claim that there is no example in history of a nation that accepted homosexuality and survived as a society.
The question for you, as someone who claims to be a “former pastor” and an “aspiring theology student” is how could you NOT include Biblical truth in any discussion of human behavior and the health of society?
adam - as goes the family, so goes the society. while the bible's teachings at least allude to that fact, we certainly don't need the bible in order to see evidence of the statement's truth. one way that the society could be sacrificed would be through the increased devaluing of the nuclear family, which comes part and parcel with the homosexual agenda. i just read some of your stuff online. You're clearly questioning a lot of things, and therefore aren't exactly standing solid footing in your view of christianity, etc. if you want to throw local churches in america under the bus, that's your prerogative and, as a christian, it wouldn't bother me too much-in fact some churches deserve to be thrown under the bus. but throwing scripture under the bus-or not taking it at face value-probably isn't a great idea for someone who claims to be a believer. either way, we don't need the bible to figure out that homosexuality ruins individuals, families, and societies ... all we need is history, sociology, biology and a little bit of unadulterated-by-hollywood-or-the-media logic.
"You could discuss hypothetical scenarios all day long, but in the end Biblical truth remains just as does gravity."
Truth? Really? What about the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, or Tao-te-Ching? Are they all complete lies?
Post a Comment