Andrew Sullivan crafted a remarkably eloquent response to Robert P. George's essay on gay marriage. In contrast to my response to George or my response to Cooper , Sullivan's response is tempered and pleasant. It raises thoughtful questions that George should answer.Sullivan's response was pleasant and friendly until it wasn't. Sullivan writes:
"Alas, having studied George's work for years, I can tell you his social policy toward me and my kind. It is that gay people should be celibate, and if not celibate, invisible. But this much we know: gays in free countries are neither going to be celibate nor invisible for the foreseeable future. So what is George's prescription except quixotic when it isn't demotic?I enjoy reading Sullivan's blog for his thoughtful writing. He doesn't write responses this long very often, but when he does it is usually excellent.
Beneath the elegant philosophical language is a blunter message to George's gay fellow human beings: be straight or go away. And since when is that a practical option in the 21st century?"
George's essay has brought Sullivan to the question:
"I repeat to conservatives: we know what you're against, in healthcare, energy, counter-terrorism, taxation, gay rights, abortion. What are you actually for? How do you intend to actually address the questions of our time and place? And if conservatism cannot do that, what use is it?"Good question. Sphere: Related Content
No comments:
Post a Comment