Monday, June 26, 2006

It Is NOT Bigotry...

From Jeff Jacoby, via Patriot Post:

"It is not bigotry to insist that there is a good reason why marriage has existed in every known human society, and why it has always involved the uniting of men and women. It is not bigotry to acknowledge what reams of scholarship confirm: Family structure matters, and children are more likely to suffer problems when they are not raised by their married mothers and fathers. It is not bigotry to resist the dishonest comparison of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage—skin color has nothing to do with wedlock, while sex is fundamental to it. And it is not bigotry to fear that a social change as radical as same-sex marriage could lead to grave and unintended consequences, from the persecution of religious institutions to a growing clamor for legalizing polygamy."

So let's get that over with, shall we?

24 comments:

allendrury said...

The fact is that more and more people reject the 'thinking' you quoted. New York is about to rule on gay marriage and though I can't predict an outcome can state how NJ feels on the issue. The survey by Rutgers-Eagleton shows 50 percent of voters approve of gay marriage with 44 percent opposed.

The poll is similar to a Zogby poll released in January.

Moreover the new Rutgers-Eagleton poll show support for civil unions at over sixty-percent in NJ.

As a conservative you must be opposed to states rights...and letting each state chart their own way?..(smile)

Dad29 said...

New Jersey?

Surely, Allen, you can do better than THAT!

As a Conservative, I think that the 14th Amendment has been mis-applied by a rogue Court, and that the 9th/10th Amendments should supercede the moronic applications of the 14th.

THAT is what Conservatives think.

Disgruntled Car Salesman said...

There IS a reason that NJ is referred to as the "Armpit of America." Now I finally get it.

Anonymous said...

So, what's your position on the Republican member of the Wisconsin Assembly who had a child out of wedlock earlier this year? He's one of the conservative, anti-abortion leaders by the way, and he is also divorced.

Sinner said...

Marriage ceased to be a force for societal stability when "no fault" divorce was created.

It seems silly to me to defend something that no longer is relevant.

(And from a wingnut yet...)

Dad29 said...

Anony, do you have something that is RELEVANT to the post's arguments, or is your specialty throwing a bunch of mud?

Try again, someday.

As to Sinner--your argument is ALSO irrelevant; it's akin to stating that 'since fiscal prudence is no longer used by Americans, let's allow unlimited overdraft privileges at no cost.'

Methinks you can do better than that, unless you're only POSING as a 'wingnut.'

The Shadow That Kicked Your Pansy Face In said...

Marriage is a religious ceremony. That is all I have to say.

Sinner said...

Actually, I think that the distruction of marriage is complete and that is relevant to same-sex marriage. Part of your argument is based on the social stability that marriage provides (that no longer exists).

Family structure matters, and children are more likely to suffer problems when they are not raised by their married mothers and fathers.

Marriage is no longer a promise to be there for the kids, it has become "I will be there util I am tired of it".

A consistant argument against same-sex marriage would also provide for a repeal of "no-fault" divorce.

Of course, remove the "benefits" handed out by the government based on marital status and the drive for gay marriage evaporates.

Sinner said...

P.S. My wingnuttiness is beyond question.

Dad29 said...

Leo, if it's "religious," then how come all those Justice of the Peace(s) marry people??

Dad29 said...

Sinner, the "divorce" issue is a red herring, although it IS an issue for society to deal with, perhaps by dumping 'no-fault.'

As it relates to homosex "marriage"--there's no relationship. Homosex "marriage" is contra naturam. That's my argument and I'm sticking to it.

proletariat said...

Overall, I would concur that marriage is a religious insitution, and that a justice of the peace has no business performing such an act.

Marriage for many, especially of religious tendencies, is the crown of stability. It is important to not confuse the crown with the good of stability itself. I have raised two kids with about as much stability as humanly possible, but I certainly do not need any religious or state sanctioned crown to validate it.

While it may be true there were things 'like marriage' in the past, it is also true that 'marriage' took on a new form of governance in the 20th century.

What we ought to do is move towards a system that severs the religious from the legal. That means two things; one, the legal rights will not be embedded in a religious insitution, and two, marriage as a religious insitutution shall remain free of goverment interference. We should leave to god what is his, and to Ceasar what is rightfully his.

Dad29 said...

Nate, are you trying to argue that 'only religion' makes a marriage "official?"

That's not so in the Catholic church. Although a priest is required to WITNESS the marriage, in fact, couples marry each other. The Church does not "marry" couples.

Following on this reality, then, no Christian 'marriage' is "religious,"--all Christian faiths copy the RC's; and to imply, as you do, that ALL world cultures have "religious" marriages--let's just say that you imply what is not prove-able (probable.)

Nope. Marriage is a natural-law phenomenon, as is intercourse, rightly ordered. It is so because it is ordered to procreation AND mutual comfort--by nature, and the nature of the spouses.

To propose that 'mutual comfort' is the ONLY ordering of marriage is true ONLY in some few cases where old age interferes with fertility, or in the few cases where there is a "plumbing" problem. In the latter case, of course, this is not anticipated--thus the 'procreative' element is still anticipated, if not fulfilled.

proletariat said...

I am argueing that it would be best to use the term marriage for religious symbolism not legal rights (civil unions).

That's not so in the Catholic church.
That sounds contraditary. Are you telling me the priest would witness vows that contradict the teachings of the church. I doubt this very much.


Marriage is a natural-law phenomeno
What natural law are you referring to. If we are talking about science, the only natural law I am aware of, then the same goes for homosexual interactions. I am not a big fan of mythology which is where it seems you're heading.

You have totally lost me with most of your response. All the stuff on procreation (some biblical reference I suppose) is lost to me.

I have no problem in how you personally define marriage, I just don't believe it should be the basis of legal rights. It is your demand for the latter that leans towards intolerance and bigotry.

So maybe Catholic weddings are the only ones that should be sanctioned by the state. Then, of course the Catholic ought to be obligated to fulfill the 'equal protections' of american society.

My stance is simple, create public policies that enhance family stability, and do not limit civil rights to the insitution of marriage. This of course does not exclude family stability when it exists in marriage (very often it doesn't) but does not partake in the illusion that it exists no where else but marriage.

If there is no connection between religious sentiment and marriage then there should be no fuss over gay marriage. Its just a legal requirement aimed at increasing family stability, right?

Dad29 said...

Perhaps I am not clear.

Marriage is contracted between parties--one male, one female. It's not "religious" in any sense--other than that it is a sacrament for the Catholics.

The priest witnesses the marriage for the Church--there are also secular witnesses, usually the best man and maid of honor.

Umnnnhh..I can't help you with "procreation" other than that it is the common term for generating and having babies. Most people know that.

As to your "legal" hangup--you have allowed the lawyers to con you into believing that all that is "legal" is, well, Legal.

Use the search-function on THIS blog (at the top, just under the header) to find my post on Maguire and John Paul II.

The definition of Natural Law is there, but you'll have to read it when you are fully awake. It's a long post. Skip the part where I dismantle Maguire's "arguments."

One more thing--don't let lawyers convince you that THEY make the law. They happen to be around by accident--and the best work they can possibly do is defend the Natural Law.

All the rest is BS.

proletariat said...

You certainly arn't telling me that there is a proposal to alter the state consitution, and saying nothing about your excitment on the matter, because of a contract between a man and a women.

There are two sides to this issue; one, those that believe the state has a role in regulating marriage, and two, those that believe it has no role. On this issue we stand on opposite aisles. Yet, with all your intolerance and bigotry you stand hand and hand with all the liberals and gay activists who believe the state has a legitimate role in regulating marriage.

My position is that marriage is a religious institution and therefore ought to be severed from any state regulation or sanctions. The basis of seperation of church and state. This gives marriage a clear religious meaning while also protecting all the religious intolerance and bigotry on desires with such an insitution.

Instead you want to hold on to the legitimacy of the state regulating the insitution of marriage. If this is what you want, so be it. Bigotry and intolerance in your 'secular institution' must be corrected. Vows and religious involvement in such an insitition should be regulated, and when involvement is deemed necessary it should be done so in a way that honors the 14th Amendment.

Dad29 said...

Ah--Nate--

Name-calling is generally the sign that you've run out of arguments.

And you have.

The State's role in governing will ALWAYS be based on some religious belief, or non-belief, or degree of belief. You may argue until you're blue in the face that 'church' and 'state' should be separate, but you demonstrate: 1) that you've been poorly educated about the Constitution and 2) the nature of governance as a whole.

So yah--I expect that the State will provide rightly-ordered laws which promote the welfare of ALL within that State; and such laws will comport with the Natural Law.

To the extent that they do NOT comport with NL, the laws will NOT promote the welfare of all.

That's why it's called "natural law;" it applies to all humans.

All of them.

Now get off the name-calling crap. I'll leave your posts, of course, to let others see your "thinking."

proletariat said...

Geez, don't be such a whiny neo crybaby. You started the post by trying to articulate why you're not a bigot. I just pointed out that your conclusion did not hold up.

I have no problem with the consitution or natural law just not in favor of your distorted whacked out variety.

So, small family orgainzation offer the most stable child rearing practices. I do not discount nor argue against this. You, yourself, point out natural law applies to all by definition, but them argue that this applies to just a man and women. Your natural law does not find its essence in the natural world but mythology. Mythology is no way to base the governance of a society.

Yes, I have had the consitution, but I just don't pick and chose the parts that fit a preconceived ideology. For conservatives, if you want to consider yourself that, freedom ends where reality begins. I live in the world a reality, where true natural law functions.

Dad29 said...

First of all, Nate, the piece was written by Jeff Jacoby. I happen to agree with every word.

Secondly, if your "real world" includes considering anal intercourse as "natural," you have problems I can't solve.

And the whining is emanating from your fingers--perhaps because you know that The Amendment will pass in Wisconsin.

Whine away...

proletariat said...

Ones aversion or lack there of to anal intercourse probably has little to do with its naturalness. Homosexual interactions / relationships exist is most mammals including human societies. Now, if one wants to formulate an ethics around the 'natural' that must be accounted for.

Personally, I see most of the 'natural' as culturally signified but that is neither here nor there. Only to point out once again that the 'natural' as a vessel for 'truth' is being articulated by both proponents and opponents of the consitutional amendment.

The amendment will fail not because we are an enlightened state, or the liberals be out in full force, but that this if to much to stomache for 'true' conservatives. Many conservatives I am in contact with do not support this amendment one bit. The amendment will fail thanks to the conservatives.

Dad29 said...

Nate, my boy...

You may claim descent from any animal you wish--and you may claim you are directly related to any animal you wish. In fact, you may claim that you ARE an animal, if you wish. Should you prove your claim, you can go screw sheep, or goats, anytime you want. Marry one, too!

Don't bet a fortune on the outcome of the vote. Don't buy the engagement ring in advance...

proletariat said...

I'll leave the beastality to the conservatives. Just as I'll leave the anal sex to the abstinence only graduates.

Incest has about as much universality as nuclear style family arrangments, but I am certainly not going to use that as an ethics for govermentality of a society.

Sorry, dad 29, I am not gay so will not be wasting money on a ring for either gender. I do love the stretch from gay to beastality though. I hear the little calves are popular with the young Republicans in your part of the state.

I have raised my two kids since birth finely without religious or state santioned contracts. The only contract that I need says 'full custudy', no civil union or marriage certificate for me. I am as against 'gay marriage' as the silly constitutional amemendment.

Dad29 said...

Nate, you ought to apply for the TA slot over at UW--the one Kevin Barrett will soon vacate.

It's reserved for those who are semi-coherent.

proletariat said...

So, from your earlier point on name calling, I take it you've run out of arguments.

It was fun, 1 point for me.