Canada: Gmarriage Victors of battle proceed with ideological mop-up [Canadian Steele], diehards battle on [Colbert's Comments]

For the blog Canadian Steele, the law is passed and will change attitudes by force of its very presence and aura of legitmacy. Behaviours, now controlled by the state to permit Gmarriage and to demote Marriage to a generic, change attitudes. By conditioning, a philosophically third-rate notion will come to be taken for granted, says Steele. For this blog/ger, there's really no thinking to (have) be(en) done. Since the law passed, majority in place, everything else will fall into place too. The opposition will die out. I agree with that. But not because, as CS argues:

Officially recognizing gay marriage is a move to uphold the basic rights and freedoms guaranteed to us as Canadians, and as human beings. To deny such to a certain group, one that has historically been denied equality and continues to be denied is to marginalize that group while promoting immorality. Canada has taken a historic step, one that we should be proud of.

Get the load: basic rights, basic freedoms guaranteed to us [where I ask? - not in the text of the Charter of Rights, as CS knows but disengenously does not mention!], as Canadians - which is a rhetorical add-on to allow a lit parallelism with "as human beings." But this is so far-fetched that it strains detection as to its possible forensic origin - is there some natural obvious somethingorother of normative character and universal presence or applicabability that as a human being a person has a right to deny the uniqueness of the 1woman1man vowed life-journey to the exclusion of all others in favour a generic business structure instituted by this government but not that? It's too loaded, and loaded with a lot of *@#&! There are so many dubious presuppositions in this conflated assertion that one comes to the conclusion that Canadian Steele reasons by puddle of sentiments, and would have the land ruled by such a jurisprudence. "Equality" here comes to reduce all the precious and distinct differences into one indiscriminate blob of reductio ad absurdam. Thus, Lesbian unions are still not recognized in their uniqueness, either. They too are a generic only; the individuals in the union are solemnized as undifferentiated ciphers. Ghost persons of no sex/gender/biochemic/organic/emotional-pattern specificity/mood typicality/life-cycle differentia womnaly specificity to the double power. Likewise, the 2men specific kind of intimate union. Only generics. The Canadian state has actually regressed in this move.

It happens that I belong to "such a group," and I'm not about to sacrifice my mental faculties to say a good word for what has prevailed in the Dominion. It's not in the Charter of Rights, and its not in some universal human condition that the three forms of intimate union (that between 1woman1man, that between 2 women, and that betwen 2 men) are the same more than they are different. Vive le différance! They are not the same, and the feature of sameness is residual to their internal structural realities in which the state has its own interest as far as goes its decision of recognition or not, its provision for or not; and the state has good reason to privilege that form of intimate union, different tremendously from the other two, in that it unites into one societal sphere across the differences internal to it, and thus render it the most difficult and strenuous form of intimacy to maintain and yet that form in which a certain form of family flourishes best and with the greater stablity on average, as social science research bears out and as the state benefits (and hence a factor in determining its own interests).

But, I do agree that "the game" is over. We are sinking into a culture of mindlessness, and a rule of sentiment, not law, not basic rights. Too bad. What's on TV. Ooops, My Gay Wedding. Quick click the off button. - Owlb

Brent Colbert battles on