Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, January 12, 2009
Doug Napier :: Townhall.com Columnist
Driving on the Wrong Side of the Road
by Doug Napier
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Shortly after Winston’s plane landed, Winston proceeded through the airport terminal to the rental car kiosk and picked up the keys to his American made sedan. Driving out of the airport, Winston steered his car into the left-hand lane and drove toward the freeway.

Understandably, airport access roads can be quite confusing, but the solid yellow line down the middle of the roadway was clearly visible and Winston should have known he was driving on the “wrong” side of the road. If that wasn’t enough of a clue, there were vehicles coming right at him in this left lane. Not surprisingly, the drivers of these cars honked and waved and pointed to the right hand lane. They were trying to signal to poor Winston that he was in the wrong lane.

Some drivers assumed that Winston was drunk. Others wondered if perhaps he was a confused, elderly driver. But the policeman that ultimately pulled him over found that he was neither drunk nor confused. He was British. Ah, well, that explains everything.

Winston is not like the rest of us. As a Brit, he is naturally wired to drive on the left side of the road. It’s almost as if he has no choice but to veer toward the left. While it can’t be said with any certainty that Brits are born with this left-leaning tendency, I’m sure it has been the subject of heated debate by lofty scholars in the hallowed halls of marble institutions of higher thought: the whole “nature vs. nurture” thing. But does it really matter whether Winston’s urge to drive on the left-hand side is genetically programmed or simply that this is where he feels most comfortable? Perhaps it’s just an extension of who he is.

How dare this police officer pull this poor man over for doing only what comes naturally to him. Of course, all Winston had to do upon being stopped is to announce to the policeman that he is a Brit and that during his visit to the U.S. he will be driving on the left-hand side. Now, surely the police officer, upon learning the circumstances of Winston’s predisposition, slapped Winston on the back with a friendly and understanding glance and sent him on his way with his blessing – on the wrong side of the road. After all, should police officers really be interfering with such personal preferences? What right do Americans have to arbitrarily decide that we should drive on the right side of the road anyway? Surely Brits have their rights, too?

Oh, you might say, “They can drive here, so long as they follow our rules!” But that is so hidebound and narrow. Live a little! Having an occasional “left-hander” coming down your lane will be exciting and mix things up a little. It’s diversity, for crying out loud. He isn’t saying everyone has to drive in the left lane. You can drive wherever you want. But what’s a little left-lane driving to you? It doesn’t mean you have to drive in the left lane. Who are you to judge “left-handers” anyway?

Now, you might say, “What about safety concerns?” or “We’ve always driven on the right side of the road.” But these responses only reveal how insensitive you are to poor Winston and his predilection. Of course, there may be some risks, but you have to weigh them against the severe emotional damage you might do to Winston should you suggest that he has to conform to our rigid and unaccepting standards.

And besides, over time, as more and more people grow comfortable with the idea that some people will be driving on the left side, we will all adjust, and it will become the new normal. You’ll see.

And if we haven’t already taken this analogy to a ridiculous and transparent extreme, we could go on and on and maybe even include terms such as “bigotry,” “civil rights,” and “tolerance.”

Sound silly? Perhaps. But it is no more silly or illogical than the arguments that are proffered by the outspoken advocates who are ardently advancing the campaign to redefine marriage. The extreme demands of this radical group would insist that the rest of the world bow down to its own unnatural and dangerous behavior, and they accuse those who resist of being “narrow,” “mean-spirited,” and even “un-American.”

There are very good reasons we drive on the right side of the road. There is no good reason, not even for the sake of “tolerance” (whatever that means), to introduce destructive chaos into this time-honored system.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Douglas Napier is senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
I thought it was analogous to
illegal immigrants who refuse to learn and speak English. Nobody dares criticize them, either.

curious
Is this meant as satire of conservatism?

I doubt I have ever seem a worse argument by analogy than this one. It is hard to be sure which of the failures of the analogy are more obvious. Is it that there is no predisposition to drive on one side of the road or the other? Probably not, after all is it really possible to miss that driving is something about which it doesn't matter which side of the road people drive on while it is important that they all drive on the same side to avoid arguments.

On the other hand gay people can get married without it making it any more dangerous for me to have a heterosexual relationship.

Although the idea that there is no moral difference between driving on one side rather than the other does seem to carry over.

On The Wrong Side
The left has not liked our country for decades. They set about to change it to conform to what they wanted. It has been a success for them,but a failure for the rest of us.

EVERY negative change that has caused the downfall of the country has been wrought by the left. They cannot truthfully deny it. They may THINK it is better. They are wrong,of course.

The right has not been faultless either. They have tried to appease the left .I call them the GAGA crowd. The 'go along to get along' weak spined RINO'S. Together,both sides have a lot of blame for our present predicament.

Go back to sleep, Lon
Gay Men's Health Crisis. Half a million dead. Figments of the fevered imagination of GOP haters. The Lightworker is here, all is well, just roll over and doze away...

Lon, Lon, Lon
It was a great analogy. Doc Liberty has just pointed out a few reasons that the analogy stands up. Gay "marriage" is a hazzardous endeavor. It cannot be attributed to heridity or "nature". It is only possible to attribute it to aberrant "nuture". It is much like driving on the wrong side of the road. It ends in a crash every time. If you doubt it, look for their offspring. Now you know.

Tom, you are right.
Bilingualism is a separatist foundation. Quebec and the rest of Canada, Arab and Jew, The Balkans are first order examples. Language differences are a root cause of internal strife in all countries and regions. They simply do not understand each other. Immigrants must learn english if they are to be contributing Americans in the full sense of the word. It cannot be otherwise. Now you know.

Doc Liberty and joltinjoe
The reason that the charge of homophobia does not seem unreasonable when used as a parallel to discrimination is because the arguments involved seem to make people truly irrational. I am inclined to think that neither of you is normally as clueless as your arguments above suggest. There is something about homosexuality that seems to drive its opponents stupid.

There is nothing naturally hazardous about driving on the left side of the road. If you are trying to make the case that there is something naturally hazardous about homosexuality then you should be criticizing the argument above.

On top of that, there is no evidence whatsoever that allowing gay marriage increases these problems. As with heterosexual marriage, gay marriage seems to be a stabilizing effect, not a destablizing one. If you actually cared about gay men (I know a kind of silly assumption) then you would presumably be encouraging the stability that decreases the spread of AIDS and decreases the stigmas that lead to high suicide rates.

Neither of you is really silly enough to think that there is some inherent danger in driving on the left side of the road rather than the right are you? Do any of you really believe that homosexuality would be fine if there simply was no heterosexuality, or that heterosexuals are endangered because other people are having homosexual sex? You can't really be that stupid.

Long way to the punchline
Ok, I have to admit that this was a long article to get all the way down to the "gay marriage bad" ending. Don't get me wrong, I agree to the proposition that marriage should only be between one man and one woman, my critique of the article has to do with the content of the argument. The analogy of a foreigner not obeying our traffic laws due to ignorance of the law or habits developed at home compared to homosexuals wanting to change the definition of marriage is a stretch for me.

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Liberal Democrats
The avowed homosexual bishop of the Episcopal Church is set to speak at the coronation next week. Now do I care who speaks or what they say? I will not watch,no matter who speaks.

Where are the conservative protesters marching and screaming that " this cannot stand?? It is not fair that a homosexual should be speaking because we conservatives do not agree with or condone his behavior."

We all know why. That is not what conservatives do. It is 'The One's ' coronation. Let him invite whomever he pleases. I couldn't care less and no one I know of does.
It would be nice if liberals treated us the same way.

That is not their way,though. They are about taking away conservative thought if it is not their agenda and it never is. Hypocrits,all.

Any one come up with a sound

reason for making the government reward practioners of sodomy?

What benefits do same-sex couples provide society that society should encourage such coupling?

Why would anyone think that unions that provide no benefits to society should be considered equal to unions that provide benefits to society?

:)
The underlying problem with this article, once you dig past the poor analogy, is how at odds the author's perceptions are with mainstream American thought and reality.

While not everyone agrees on the marriage equality issue, only a few believe that gay people's desire for legal recognition of their relationships is an "extreme" demand. Only a few believe that gay people, as a group, are "radicals". Only a few believe that homosexuality is inherently unnatural or dangerous. And only a few actually believe that giving gays marriage equality would result in "destructive chaos".

You whine about being called mean-spirited? Come on? Reread your own article, sport. If you don't understand that you are attempting to make your point in a way that is rude, disrespectful, and unkind, you better go back to humanity school and retake some courses on basic courtesy and empathy.

Far be it from me to offer you advice on how to succeed at influencing people on this issue, since I think your position is wrong and unamerican, but here goes: the changing demographics as a result of gay people coming out of the closet that has lead to more people supporting gay rights at an amazing pace, from a sociopolitical standpoint is the fact that public visibility of gay people has convinced their loved ones, their friends and families, and even their casual acquaintances, that they are just like everyone else, with one small difference which is morally neutral. The people you need to convince to support your position are not the raving zealots, but the nice people (who, unlike you, apparently understand the meaning of the word tolerance) who are being exposed to the sameness of equally nice gay people who are making their way through life just like everyone else. Demonizing gay people turns off their friends and their family and bosses and employees and so on. Get it? If you can't be compelling AND nice, you will lose this battle sooner.

Allen,

you just keep on trying to tell people the virtues of sodomy. I will continue to believe its practices are perversions of what is good.

If you are right, and most Americans believe practicing sodomy is just as beneficial to society as procreating children, America is well on its way to its demise.

D'oh
Hah! Until I got to the end, I was sure this was all about Islamists who live in western cultures.


lol at eddie
dude, you have an unhealthy obsession with gay sex.


How about a real life story

Among the problems of driving on the wrong side of the road, is that each morning we must figure all over again, how to do it. The passenger just can't remember it's her job to see what's around the next curve. She does serve other very useful, and really delightfully curvy functions.
(Great Britain, Ireland)

Later, back on the Continent of Europe.

We bought some of the best French bread we have found anywhere. On the way to Gouda we had to wait for a bridge to open and let a barge through, then close. When Jim made a right turn at one place, Emmy got all excited and yelled at the driver - then we both remembered we are no longer in England, and he is driving on the proper side of the road. (Netherlands)

Allen

what a profound rebuttal of my points.

5 Simple words...
Some of you get so steamed. Starting with nice comments, it's amazing the pro Homosexual agenda posters devolve into their hate speech. Truth matters not, just talking points. Well here's the truth. Less than 5% of the people claim to be homosexual. And Claim is the operatvie word. A very low percentage trying to inflict their desires upon society. It really comes down to this. Biology does not determine bahavior. Just like someone who's biologically wired to be a pedephile, or drug addict or alchoholic, you have a choice. And choice does not beget rights. If I'm wired to be a murderer that does not mean you can have laws against my hannibal lecturisms. It's about nature plain and simple. No same sex marriage, no procreation. No procreation, no society. Without extra-relationship assistance there would be no gay families. Just two people choosing to live the way they CHOOSE, and forcing those choices on others who hold the majority. For the poster who claimed that the majority of Americans approve of this lifestyle is an outright lie being perpetuated by their own agenda.

Jim
It is true that if the only marriage was same sex marriage and nobody had sex outside of marriage there would be no procreation. But there is a kind of small flaw of the sort one could pass a planet through.

Allow same sex marriage does not actually force everyone to marry someone of the same sex. In fact same sex marriage does nothing to reduce the level of procreation unless the idea is to get more homosexuals to marry people of the opposite sex on some theory that the problem with this country is that there are not enough doomed marriages.

Nobody is actually forcing you to choose same sex marriage. Not sure why you think they are.

Funny and apropos analogy
I will say no more!

Thank You Mr. Napier...,more please.
Your article is relevant to more than the "Gay Marriage" issue.

I have said before...., I feel as though I am in Wonderland,where down is up, and up is down.

The war, the bailout, immigration...., with the Dems. in charge it just gets "curioser and curiouser."

Lon
Agreed, the analogy is tenuous. A society must, however, make choices of norming and marginalizing behaviors. Driving on the right or left, right of way, yielding, color of lights, etc. are examples. Laws are guidelines of acceptable behavior. Murder, robbery, extortion, etc. are not possible to allow and simultaneously maintain a stable society. Historically, heterosexual relationships have predominated in all societies with perhaps a few exceptions. The religious Shaker communities promoted abstinence and non-marriage. They had to rely on converts to carry on their culture. There are not many left today, I think. We know that an exclusively homosexual culture will suffer the same fate. We are left with making decisions as to how we can accommodate individuals and sub-cultures that prefer homosexuality within the dominant heterosexual society. Clearly, homosexuality is not normal. This does not imply moral judgement, it's just a statistical fact. Geniuses and Downs syndrome individuals also make up a small population outside of "normal" boundaries. Can homosexuality be considered "normal?" It cannot. Debate and research continue concerning how people "become" homosexual... nature versus nurture. Can homosexuals love, be loved, have jobs, be part of the population as a whole, yes, of course. Is the majority of our population willing to call homosexual "marriage" normal, and re-write the laws? Not yet, and the majority writes the rules and makes the laws in a representative government. Even in California, with the massive focus and blitz to stop Prop. 8, it failed. Yell and accuse opponents as: "haters," "bigots," "religious zealots" all you want, the hearts and minds of most people have not been won. Only judges with a philosophical agenda have heretofore circumvented what the majority wishes to call and bless as a "normal marriage." That's where we stand.

Lon
The point I made was not everything that needed to be said on the matter. However for you to assume a hole to drive a planet through and jump to that conclusion of my thoughts is ludicrous. The point is marriage is the traditional and biological way and also the accepted agreement and way in society that families are formed. It furthers the growth of societies and is normative, and in fact proven, to enhance societies and families and not tear them down. I do believe in choices. Everyone's free to make their own. But to force biologically and societally abnormal behaviors as a right upon an unwilling society is not acceptable. In California, same sex couples have every single right as married couples, and to say they don't is a lie that keeps getting perpetuated on a mostly uninformed populace. Also to say that shools will not teach children alternative lifestyles is another lie that same sex couples promote. I reference SB777. Also it is a fact, not a lie, that the school cariculum mandates alternative lifestyle teacher of our children, when all this indoctrination should be left to parents and not some outsider at the school level. With all that being said, do what you want. Behave how you want. It's yours or others choices, but there are consequences to all our actions. Whether you choose same sex or inter species or multiple partners, do what you wish and want, but don't attempt to say a behavioral choice becomes a right. That was the point. Not that heterosexuals will be forced to marry same sex. I contend you got way off point in an attempt to draw your own assumption or conclusion.

Thanks Mr. Napier
I think immediately of gay marriage. Its just the wrong side of the road.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.