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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
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.
There IS a reason that NJ is referred to as the "Armpit of America." Now I finally get it.
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.
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...)
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.'
Marriage is a religious ceremony. That is all I have to say.
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.
P.S. My wingnuttiness is beyond question.
Leo, if it's "religious," then how come all those Justice of the Peace(s) marry people??
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.
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.
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.
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."
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...
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...
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.
Post a Comment