klehner wrote:
AlanShearer wrote:
Opinions change. Rather than using that to criticize someone, it should be celebrated.
For most people over 40, there was a time in their past when they either opposed gay marriage or would have had they considered it.
When someone is consistently on the wrong side of history, we should take that into consideration when they speak on a topic, don't you think?
I think that's a valid point.
One of my favourite quotes by Christopher Hitchens is this:
“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.†It is attitudes to change and human rights that are at issue, not religion, although religious fundamentalism is so often "on the wrong side of history".
In the (relatively) recent debates about marriage equality in my country a leading conservative/ religious politician attempted to make his opposition sound reasonable and mainstream. However, I'm old enough to remember decades back when he led the opposition to the decriminalisation of homosexuality; and I heard him cite Leviticus for his stance. He has never since disavowed that position. As best we know, were it up to him gays would still be subject to imprisonment, and possibly the death penalty. When assessing his arguments about marriage equality (or the right to sack gays, or expel them from religious schools, or any other rearguard action de jour) it is reasonable to understand the context of his complete agenda.
As for BK, he hasn't got the hang of the 21st century, but I doubt he's changed his mind about much; he just picks new fights as the world moves past him.