Good think piece, for those who think.
...Franz Rosenzweig’s anthropology—in which religion is a response to man’s sentience of death, and the sentience of death is not only an individual but also an communal characteristic—may help answer that question. Humankind fights mortality in two ways. The first is to raise children who will remember us, and the second is to seek eternal life through divine grace. The estate of marriage involves both.
“Why do men chase women?” asks Rose Castorini in Moonstruck. “Because they want to live forever.” The data suggest that we marry and have children for just that reason. When we cease to hope in eternal life, we no longer marry and no longer have children. That is the terrible lesson that the triumph of secularism has taught us. In industrial countries where atheism triumphed in the form of communism, fertility rates have fallen to levels barely half of replacement. The fertility of Eastern Europe in 2005 was only 1.25 children per woman, according to the United Nations Population Prospects. Japan stood at 1.3. In secular Western Europe it was 1.6. In industrial countries where most people profess some form of religious faith, however, fertility remains at replacement levels or above. America’s fertility in 2005 stood at 2.1, and Israel’s at 2.9.
Hmmmm....recall that there is such a thing as "practical atheism" when someone remarks that 'Oh, yes, I believe...'
...The first principle of Augustine’s anthropology, that we are made for God and restless until we come to him, coheres well with what we observe in societies that abandon God. Our restlessness in that terminal case can reach levels that tear us to pieces. It is entirely possible to devise other means of perpetuating the species than marriage, for example, the collective raising of children as in Plato’s dystopia and the various attempts to realize some of its features. But none of them has taken, not even for short periods of time. They have no interest for human beings. It is not only that people want to raise their own children, rather than the state’s children: Without the expectation of eternal life within a faith community, mating couples do not evince interest in reproducing at replacement levels.
...This may be the first time in Western history in which the sacred foundation of society, whose irreducible fundamental unit is the family, faces explicit opposition. If militant secularism succeeds in banishing the sacred from social life, we will lose heart and perish, as the tragic victims of communism are perishing. There is nothing to be done for the infertile, aging peoples of the former Soviet empire. The best thing one can do for them is not to be like them. Secular Western Europe already has one foot in the demographic grave. If we lose the sacred in the United States, we will follow them into Sheol. We might as well make a stand now over the sacred character of marriage, because there is nowhere to fall back from here.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Dadster, no wants to take your religious beliefs away from you or your country. This country will not parish into the depths of Soviet-style communism because a few gay people want to get married.
Directly relating birth rates in Eastern European and East Asian countries to atheism is a major stretch. It appears that the author is attempting to rally the troops by demonizing the other side as evil (communist whatever). You know, if you let those gays get married you and your country are all going to die a slow death like those communists and those "infertile" Eastern Europeans whatever the heck that means. It all just has the looks of a new-age McCarthyism to me.
Fortunately, you will not 'take away my religious beliefs,' as I'm the only one capable of doing that...
And no, it's not "demonization." It is an observation which is by no means imputing "demons" to Europe.
The converse situations (Arabia and South America) are the proof of his pudding.
IOW, it's not just gay 'marriage;' it's what is BEHIND gay 'marriage.'
In effect there is no difference between gay 'marriage' and sterile heterosex marriage (a truism given the usual caveats) and that atheism (or practical atheism) is the underlying condition.
You can choose to say that's 'name-calling.' I look at it as a very persuasive insight.
I hope I'm not the first to recall this song when you talk like that.
Regular as clockwork. You can always count on certain topics to get the bigots to show themselves. And by never engaging in the argument ("Gee! This made me think of this really cool song!! Anybody else on board?"), they reveal a kind of cynical, cool-ly-superior, anti-intellectual streak as well. After all, it's so much easier to mock than it is to think. And people think you so clever!
This is what happens when folks show up at a battle of wits unarmed. Regular as clockwork...
I have one question though, by denying homosexuals the right of marriage, do you think they will suddenly decide that it is time to start procreating with a woman in an effort to "live for ever?" If you think that, then you are misguided at best, extremely stupid at worst. Because of your misguided beliefs (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt), you are denying a certain segment of the population rights that are well deserved. Let's see here, in your world, homosexual partners are denied the right of marriage, and the privileges that come with it, and do not procreate to replenish the species. In my world, and every rational thinkers world, homosexuals are granted marriage privileges, gain the right to act as health proxy, receive health benefits, realize social security benefits, and accept tax breaks. Wake the heck up, homosexuals are not going to start heterosexual relations to "live forever." Your position is bigoted, and it is laughable that you defend it.
We build the tax base by allowing gay unions.
“Why do men chase women?” asks Rose Castorini in Moonstruck. “Because they want to live forever.”
No, that's wrong on its face. For every woman I've ever loved, I would gladly have died on the instant.
Jake, there IS no "right" to marriage, whether one is hetero or homo.
And as you know, homosexual unions are not procreative by their nature.
Post a Comment