Gender-neutral bathrooms: All bathrooms should be open to all users.:
I've been wondering what the next frontier after "gay marriage" would be. We know there has to be one, since there can't be a "progressive" movement unless "progress" is being made.
One of my picks has always been just the further sorting out of "bi-sexual marriage" as in exactly how DOES one deal with "transgender / gender free / androgynous / queer". BTW, Slate uses the term "queer" in the first sentence, so if that is decided to be a terrible slur in 30 years and I'm a famous food network personality, it really WAS an approved word when I used it here!
Of course, so was the "N-word" when Paula Deen last used it, but little details like that make no difference to the PC police. The only choice if you want to be "safe" is to ALWAYS agree with the "progressives" or remain COMPLETELY silent ... and with the current level of surveillance, I'd say you better just "get your mind right".
The logic in this article gives a good insight into the minds of "progressives'.
A minority that "feels uncomfortable" is identified. It is verified that they have no current cultural norms or any transcendent religious thought basis for their group identification. As a group they are identified purely by a physical or behavioral choice. Science may or may not be able to identify if there is actually a physical (eg genetic) origin of their identification, but as in the case of proving there are not space aliens, (or pretty much ANY negative), "it can't be ruled out"!
If you are a "progressive", since people feel strongly about this and it "can't be ruled out", ergo it must exist! Therefore it is a FACT that "these people were MADE THIS WAY" ... apparently by randomness, since there is no God. "Randomness is good, randomness is great, we honor it's "logic". Consider how "foolish" believing in an actual multiple millennium old religion is compared to this "logic".
Certainly pedophiles could be chosen as well (and might be next). The test is, "Can anyone say anything of this group that could NOT be said of gays"? So, the big comeback: "Do you REALLY think that ANYONE would CHOOSE to have sex with children given the legal and cultural taboos? You would have to be CRAZY to believe that!! They MUST have an inherent "desire/drive" that they CAN'T change (or even control)!!!!" (we don't really want to follow the way this logic works, retching could ensue ... animals? rape? cannibalism? "That cannibal had to know people would be offended, he MUST have been "made that way"!"
Note, this is NOT like being black. It is obvious that you don't "choose to be black", nature has already exposed the genetic links quite clearly. Note also the difference with alcoholism. There seems to be very clear genetic markers, but nobody is saying that we need to recognize the alcoholic lifestyle as being "equal or superior to the sober lifestyle".
Human kind as all sorts of innate drives and desires that are at least extremely difficult to control. So for 10's of thousands of years religions and cultures developed to encourage the drives deemed to be adaptive, and inhibit the ones which are not. Monogamy makes for a nice time tested way of both procreating and socializing the young. Gay, not so much. Moderate drinking or abstaining, pretty adaptive, alcoholic, not so much.
Of course, there is a lot of diversity. Winston Churchill was at least borderline alcoholic as have been many great authors and other artists. Not surprisingly, there are a lot of examples of other unusual appetites in great leaders, artists, entertainers and such. If you are of superior intellect, stamina, fortitude, musical ability, or some other positive, you MAY be able to do quite well going against the grain of society and be extremely successful. The list is WAY too long to even start when you talk drugs, alcohol, sexuality, etc, but everyone knows it to be true. FOR EXCEPTIONAL CASES ... which may, BTW be also related to them being exceptional -- where there are great abilities, there are great deficits.
But guess what. There aren't a lot of Churchills, Hemmingways, or even Elton Johns. The structures of morality and culture are for the MASSES ... the average, and especially the below average, which naturally doesn't sit well with the "we are all the same" folks. Yup, you and Jeffery Dahmer can be "the same" all you want. As for me, Viva La Difference!
"Progressives" can't stand this, because they want absolute equality, and if human nature itself is flawed and not infinitely malleable, then their whole project is doomed. Things like making "gay good" and then making it "equal or better with heterosexual" are projects that they MUST be able to carry out. They have to crank up the sanctions to a level where essentially nobody dare open their mouth to say anything other than what their progrom demands. If it causes the need for repression of the folks that aren't "getting their mind right", that is just a price to be paid. They KNOW that what they are doing is RIGHT, so people that don't agree have to be "handled".
"Progressivism" is wonderful because "progress" NEVER stops! You may be thinking to yourself that gender neutral bathrooms will never become law". Well, in CA schools, they already have ! http://calwatchdog.com/2013/08/13/gov-brown-signs-gender-bathroom-bill/
As they say, as CA goes, so goes the nation. I didn't even know the meaning of "gay" until I was out of HS, and then I pretty much couldn't believe it. Of course by the late '70s, it was running wild in CA, and then they were dying like flies from AIDs. One would have STILL thought -- "OK, this was a short term blip, and while it may continue on in whacked out CA, the rest of the country has seen where this easily leads". That was just "gay", I would have never imagined anything like gay "marriage".
I dropped my subscription to Time in the early '90s when they had a sympathetic report on the plight of a poor teacher that was a member of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) and it was likely going to cost him his job. Hey, it's not like he declared himself a Christian or quoted the Bible or anything! THAT would be a legitimate cause for dismissal!
The basis of human culture and development is the idea of social norms that are largely passed on to the next generation so we feel that we are part of a meaningful chain of creation with a purpose. Keep changing up the culture so that one generation can no longer hardly identify if the next is even human, and man becomes as Burke said, "Like the flies of summer".
Only it is worse than that! We are NOT flies! Flies need no meaning, they procreate with a vengeance as long as there is food. Not so man. As we see in Europe and the European origin population of the US, man ceases to continue the species when there is no longer any vision of the next generation following a religious and cultural order. We need more than to just pass on our genes. We seek to propagate the hopes, dreams, morals and soul of our civilization!
When that is destroyed, then we perish. Why even have a higher brain that engenders a religion for the hope of eternal life and a culture that is more than a continuation of mere gene pool?
The point is, there is no reason to do so. There is GOOD reason that he Chinese are still thinking expansion, and we are focused on transfer of wealth to the elderly as we pass into the ash heap of history.
'via Blog this'