Please help me respond to this!!!!!!!!!! Its from an email!
Now, to quickly answer the question of why one would repeal a law that the majority voted for: You see, there's this thing called the U.S. Constitution that, in sum, provided for protections for minority opinions even in the face of a majority rule. Now, various laws have been based upon that that allows for corrections to previously enacted laws when they are found to be discriminatory, wrong, unjust, etc.
Im pretty sure this applies from http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs...es/9707137.pdf
But how do I apply this? Multicultural argument is the same as his minority argument is it not?
Diversity is a code word for the political doctrine of multi-culturalism. By itself it means only “the variety
of things,” but as used by the homosexual movement “diversity” is a moral statement about the way society
ought to be: a harmonious social pluralism in which every culture is honored for its contribution to the whole.
Thus feel-good emotionalism is harnessed to obscure deeply flawed reasoning.
Multi-culturalism, meaning the equality of cultures in a pluralistic society, is a valid concept if culture is
defined by morally neutral criteria. Society should pursue civic equality based upon things like race, ethnic
heritage and religion. But cultural practices are not morally neutral. Few of us would agree that the cultures
of German Nazism, Soviet Communism, and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan are the equals of American culture.
The “culture” of homosexuality – a way of life rooted in the practice of sodomy – is not equal to the inherited
family-based cultures of African-Americans, Asian-Americans or Arab-Americans.
The very inclusion of behavioral criteria in the definition of culture invalidates the premise of equality in multiculturalism.
This introduces the companion word to diversity: inclusiveness. Churches and other institutions that have
fallen victim to “gay” sophistry openly congratulate themselves for being inclusive. This is the same error
in a different form. In both cases there is a failure to define the standard of acceptance by which people are
welcomed into the circle of inclusion. With no standard, there can be no objectivity in the process and
decisions represent merely the arbitrary will of the person or persons in charge.
In summary, the doctrine of multi-culturalism promotes the equality of all diverse cultures in our society under
the code-word “diversity.” The doctrine’s validity depends upon limiting the definition of culture to morally
neutral criteria. The inclusion of morally significant sexual behavior in the definition robs multi-culturalism
of validity by granting legitimacy to immoral practices. Attempting to fix the problem by excluding some
cultures because of their practices (for example cannibalism or slavery) contradicts the premise of equality
of cultures. Failure to articulate a standard by which to determine which cultures should be included
compounds the problem by vesting arbitrary authority in whomever holds power.
The effective response to a champion of “diversity” is to focus on the definition of multiculturalism and to
demand to know the standard for inclusion.