http://culture11.com/blogs/ladyblog/2008/11/10/disgusted-by-traditional-marriage/
Chesterton
This has always been one of my favorite Chesterton quotes, ever since I read it about 12 years ago. As far as I can tell, it has never appeared on the internet except for this text version. Chesterton explains the seeming paradox that people who don't see the use of a social institution should not be allowed to reform it. Here's the quote:
The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic, chap. 4 (1929).
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.
posted by Fitz @ 5:27 PM
24 Comments:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056415/Teach-pleasure-gay-sex-children-young-say-researchers.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112702.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112704.html
A document prepared for the seminar and couched in convoluted academic jargon says: 'The team is concerned to interrogate the desexualisation of children's bodies, the negation of pleasure and desire in educational contexts, and the tendency to shy away from discussion of (sexual) bodily activity in No Outsiders project work.
'The danger of accusations of the corruption of innocent children has led team members to make repeated claims that this project is not about sex or desire - and that it is therefore not about bodies.
'Yet, at a very significant level, that is exactly what it is about and to deny this may have significant negative implications for children and young people.'
So, "we want to get 5 year olds to learn about gay sex, except that it has nothing to do with bodies or sex, yet at the same time it has everything to do with bodies and sex."
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202426226804
http://f6slinkspage.blogspot.com/2008/07/loving-more-than-one-what-is-multiple.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jTXKISkpV7GOQ06_flqtI63zFL4AD95CLCTO0
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-21-blacklist_N.htm
12/21/2008 Prop 8 foes turn to 'blacklist' tactics
By William M. Welch, USA TODAY
The impact of same-sex marriage on religious freedom
Christian Examiner staff report
http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Dec08/Art_Dec08_11.html
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/faith-forbidden/
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/132680
Perhaps the most depressing and fruitless feature of the current debate about homosexuality is to treat all version of this argument as the equivalent of bigotry. They are not. In an appeal to "nature," the most persuasive form of this argument is rooted in one of the oldest traditions of thought in the West, a tradition that still carries a great deal of intuitive sense. ... And at its most serious, it is not a phobia; it is an argument. And as arguments go, it has a rich literature, an extensive history, a complex philosophical core, and a view of humanity that tells a coherent and at times beautiful story of the meaning of our natural selves.
Andrew Sullivan,
Virtually Normal, pp 21-23
http://nfpworks.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/booyah-humanae-vitae-is-in-tha-house/
http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2009/01/future-of-servitude.html
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/17/gay-rights-gay-rage/1
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/scripture/page/4/
http://regularthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://richardjneuhaus.blogspot.com/
http://www.moralaccountability.com/
http://newcatholicpolitics.com/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1132053/Youll-grandchildren-Social-workers-warning-couple-spoke-gay-adoption-row.html;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1132789/Did-children-torn-grandparents-adopted-gay-men-fall-prey-politically-correct-social-services-agenda.html.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012808.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4427191/Grandparents-anguish-at-losing-gay-couple-adoption-children.html
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2009/02/dangerous-rise-of-sexual-politics.html
http://shekidnappedmychildren.wordpress.com/2008/05/
http://www.misandryreview.com/wordpress/?p=1265
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lagay20-2008may20,0,5944107.story
See Declaration of Alan J. Hawkins as Expert Witness for Defendant at
8–9, Varnum v. Brien, No. CV 5965 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Mar. 15, 2007), available at
http://manwomanmarriage.org/jrm/pdf/Alan_Hawkins.pdf.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080206-1230-ca-gaymarriage.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/07/BACPUTN95.DTL
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00572.x?prevSearch=authorsfield%3A%28Sarkadi%29
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/archive/105/1/grostic.pdf
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2004/july04/psrjuly04.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=519311&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080225/CULTURE/256068479/1015
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/religiousfreedom/default.aspx?cid=4826&referral=E0209SC1
423996F
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/nyregion/23bigcity.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL
http://www.marriagedebate.com/labels/Romer%20v.%20Evans.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqgD7lGneU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Etacomaatheists%2Ecom%2Farchives%2F1206&feature=player_embedded
Rob (writes)
"Right now, you're in a position to make deals. Gay marriage advocates would love to have gay marriage happen sooner rather than later. Most of us would be very happy to carve out some exceptions to anti-discrimination law if it enables gay people to get marriage licenses sooner. We won't be as inclined to make concessions once several more states get gay marriage. If you're worried about religious liberty, take steps to protect it now."
We are simply not in apposition to make any deals for same-sex marriage or religious liberty. When the courts did the tyrannical step of deciding a fundamental public policy decision that should be left to the people they constitutional-ized and (eventually) federalized this entire issue.
Any “deals” that we try to cut will end up being used by the proponents of same-sex “marriage” to forward an d legitimize the goal of same-sex “marriage”. This is what happened in New-Jersey and California and Connecticut with civil union’s legislation. The people adopted those proposals to satiate the gay lobby. The courts then came in an used them as an example of how the people had legitimized gay marriage and said they were insufficient and still discriminatory. Any bone thrown to the gay lobby will end up thrown in our face in this manner.
Likewise with any religious liberty exceptions. Such exceptions will still be litigated regardless of how broad or narrow they are drawn: no matter who or what they cover. The courts have set themselves up as the ultimate arbitrator of these decisions when they got their nose stuck in it to launch this assault on the family & marriage.
Better strategy to let them continue to play the aggressor and set the parameters. Better to “cut deals” and assert our rights under the constitution BEFORE we shop around top Federal and State legislatures for any specific protections. We will have greater sympathy at that point politically with both the courts and the people.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040702200.html?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpraJYnbVtE
http://www.isteve.com/2002_Problem_with_Polygamy.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/20/animalbehaviour-evolution
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/20/animalbehaviour-evolution
Professor Germain Grisez: “Though a male and a female are complete individuals with respect to other functions – for example nutrition, sensation, and locomotion- with respect to reproduction they are only potential parts of a mated pair, which is the complete organism capable of reproducing sexually. Even if the mated pair is sterile, intercourse, provided it is the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species, makes the copulating male and female one organism”
“Though a male and a female are complete individuals with respect to other functions – for example, nutrition, sensation and locomotion – with respect to reproduction they are only potential parts of a mated pair, which is the complete organism capable of reproducing sexually.”
“The central and justifying point of sex is not pleasure (or even the sharing of pleasure) per se, however much sexual pleasure is sought – rightly sought – as an aspect of the perfection of marital union; the point of sex, rather, is marriage itself, considered as an essentially and irreducibly (though not merely) bodily union of persons – a union effectuated and renewed by acts of sexual congress – conjugal acts,”
http://www.princeton.edu/~anscombe/articles/finnismarriage.pdf
I've answered this question on this site at sometime in the past, but will answer it again. It is true that "blue" states or the most liberal states have the lowest rates of divorce. But we need to look at the entire picture, not just the divorce numbers. More liberal states also have much higher rates of cohabitation. They also have low birth rates and higher abortion rates. So what does this tell us?
It tells us that people in "red" or more conservative states are overall making a greater effort to have what in our society is considered a more traditional family, hence the higher birth rates. Yet many of them struggle and even fail to do so, hence the higher divorce rates. But more people in liberal states have given up on the traditional family altogether, which explains the low birth rates and high cohabitation rate.
It's no wonder liberal states have low divorce rates. They have a lot more people who don't even bother with marriage any more. So it makes sense that those who are committed enough to actually get married would tend to stay together. Of course, there are cultural and socio-economic factors at work in all this as well. But I think looking at the whole picture makes a lot more sense here. And when one looks at the whole picture as opposed to just the divorce statistics, liberal states don't come off that well.
Some evidence on the anthropological point: Although the details of getting married who chooses the mates, what are the ceremonies and exchanges, how old are the parties � vary from group to group, the principle of marriage is everywhere embodied in practice. . . . The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval . . . of a couples engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing offspring. Kingsley Davis (ed.), Contemporary Marriage: Comparative Perspectives on a Changing Institution (New York: Russell Sage Foundation) (1985).
"Marriage is a universal social institution, albeit with myriad variations in social and cultural details. A review of the cross-cultural diversity in marital arrangements reveals certain common themes: some degree of mutual obligation between husband and wife, a right of sexual access (often but not necessarily exclusive), an expectation that the relationships will persist (although not necessarily for a lifetime), some cooperative investment in offspring, and some sort of recognition of the status of the couples children. The marital alliance is fundamentally a reproductive alliance." Margo Wilson & Martin Daly, Marital Cooperation and Conflict, in Evolutionary Psychology, Public Policy and Personal Decisions 197, 20 (Charles Crawford & Catherine Salmon eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. 2004)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/mar/06/charlotte-raven-feminism-madonna-price
Some evidence on the anthropological point: Although the details of getting married who chooses the mates, what are the ceremonies and exchanges, how old are the parties vary from group to group, the principle of marriage is everywhere embodied in practice. . . . The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval . . . of a couples engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing offspring. Kingsley Davis (ed.), Contemporary Marriage: Comparative Perspectives on a Changing Institution (New York: Russell Sage Foundation) (1985).
"Marriage is a universal social institution, albeit with myriad variations in social and cultural details. A review of the cross-cultural diversity in marital arrangements reveals certain common themes: some degree of mutual obligation between husband and wife, a right of sexual access (often but not necessarily exclusive), an expectation that the relationships will persist (although not necessarily for a lifetime), some cooperative investment in offspring, and some sort of recognition of the status of the couples children. The marital alliance is fundamentally a reproductive alliance." Margo Wilson & Martin Daly, Marital Cooperation and Conflict, in Evolutionary Psychology, Public Policy and Personal Decisions 197, 20 (Charles Crawford & Catherine Salmon eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. 2004)
The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884) by Fredrick Engels.
Engels portrays the prehistory (what he calls the “original state”) of sexual life & procreation as something of a golden age – lots of free sex for anyone who wanted it, little if any sexual jealousy (“every women belonged equally to every man and, similarly, every man to every woman”), social harmony, equality between the sexes, kinship ties determined by and through women (in part because paternity was seldom clearly established) and women acting as strong and even dominate social leaders.1
Then a terrible thing happened: Private property and capitalism were born; the ancient “mother right” was overturned; and men both took over the family and created the state to protect their newly gained privileges. According to Engel’s, “the overthrow of the mother right was the world-historic defeat of the female sex” The man seized the reigns of the house also; the woman was degraded, enthralled, the slave of the man’s lust, a mere instrument for breeding children.”
History had begun. In the new order, paternal authority was total and ruthless: “In order to guarantee the fidelity of the wife, that is, the paternity of the children, the woman is placed in mans absolute power; if he kills her he is but exercising his right.” 2
Marriage laws enforcing monogamy took hold during this transitional period, not because of individual of “individual sex love” says Engel’s, but in order for males to appropriate wealth and transfer it to their sons. A “wife” in the new marriage-based order is someone who differs form the ordinary courtesan only in that she does not hire out her body, like a wageworker, on piecework, but sells it into once and for all.” Marriage thus makes its appearance in history not as “the reconciliation of man & woman,” but instead as “the victory of private property” and as “the proclamation of a conflict between the sexes entirely unknown hitherto in prehistoric times”.3 Engels, quoting Marx, argues that marriage as it actually emerged in human history “contains within itself in miniature all the antagonisms which later develop on a wide scale within society and its state” 4
Hey
some advice needed:
I'm Looking to purchase [url=http://www.milesgershon.com/tv-stands.html][b]TV Stands[/b][/url] or TV [url=http://www.milesgershon.com][b]Wall Units[/b][/url] For an apartment I'mclosing on.
Can you folksgive me a good recommendation of where is the bestplace to buy these? I live in Georgia and I heard that the big thing about these [url=http://www.milesgershon.com][b]tv stands[/b][/url] is the cost of shipping and installation.
I also found this great article about wiring your entertainment center: http://www.helium.com/items/1577888-how-to-wire-your-home-entertainment-center
looking forward to your reply
[url=http://www.milesgershon.com][img]  [/img][/url]
Selma
1.And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying:
2.Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: I am the Lord, your God
3. Like the practice of the land of Egypt, in which you dwelled, you shall not do, and like the practice of the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you, you shall not do, and you shall not follow their statutes
4. You shall fulfill My ordinances and observe My statutes, to follow them. I am the Lord, your God
5. You shall observe My statutes and My ordinances, which a man shall do and live by them. I am the Lord.
6. No man shall come near to any of his close relatives, to uncover [their] nakedness. I am the Lord.
7. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness.
8. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness.
9. The nakedness of your sister, whether your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether born to one who may remain in the home or born to one who must be sent outside you shall not uncover their nakedness.
10. The nakedness of your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter you shall not uncover their nakedness, for they are your own nakedness.
11. The nakedness of the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father she is your sister: you shall not uncover her nakedness.
12. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is the close relative of your father
13. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is the close relative of your mother.
14. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother you shall not come near his wife; she is your aunt.
15. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter in law; she is your son's wife you shall not uncover her nakedness.
16. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife: it is your brother's nakedness.
17. You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take [in marriage] her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness they are close relatives, it is evil counsel.
18. And you shall not take a woman with her sister [in marriage] as rivals, to uncover the nakedness of one upon the other, in her lifetime
19. And to a woman during the uncleanness of her separation, you shall not come near to uncover her nakedness.
20. You shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife, to become defiled by her.
21. And you shall not give any of your offspring to pass through for Molech. And you shall not profane the Name of your God. I am the Lord
22. You shall not lie down with a male, as with a woman: this is an abomination
23. And with no animal shall you cohabit, to become defiled by it. And a woman shall not stand in front of an animal to cohabit with it; this is depravity.
24. You shall not defile yourselves by any of these things, for the nations, whom I am sending away from before you, have defiled themselves with all these things.
25. And the land became defiled, and I visited its sin upon it, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.
26. But as for you, you shall observe My statutes and My ordinances, and you shall not do like any of these abominations neither the native, nor the stranger who sojourns among you.
27. For the people of the land who preceded you, did all of these abominations, and the land became defiled.
28. And let the land not vomit you out for having defiled it, as it vomited out the nation that preceded you.
29. For anyone who commits any of these abominations, the persons doing so shall be cut off from the midst of their people.
30. And you shall observe My charge, not to commit any of the abominable practices that were done before you, and you shall not become defiled by them. I am the Lord your God.
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9919/jewish/Chapter-18.htm
They merely said homosexual acts in private are not the government's concern. As to the public aspect,let's see what two of the justices had to say.
"That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations — the asserted state interest in this case — other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group...
Sandra Day O 'Connor, Lawrence v Texas
"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. IT DOES NOT INVOLVE WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT MUST GIVE FORMAL RECOGNITION TO ANY RELATIONSHIP THAT HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS SEEK TO ENTER. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. "
Lawrence v Texas, Justice Anthony Kennedy
Pete
"Funny that I see Thomas Jefferson quoted in these forums. Of all the founding fathers he had to be the least Christian. Look up the Jefferson bible, you'll see that he took the bible and whittled it down to 39 pages, cutting out all the stuff he didn't believe in. What was left was title, "The Life and Morals of Jesus Nazareth."
Most learned observors would say Benjermin Franklin was the least Christian. Regardless...the Jefferson Bible was never published by Jefferson and was simplly an experiment he conducted for his own use in his privatge library. He did not take the "entire Bible", just the Gospels. He did not "cutt out all the stuff he didn't believe in" rather he removed the passages that had supernatural refrences (miracles) leaving only - "The Life and Morals of Jesus Nazareth."
A life and morality that exalts the family & marriage (and knows how its defined)
Also: A fair review of the founders understanding of the democratic project encounters (again & again) there universal agreement that a lasting and authentic democracy requires a religion as a sustaining force that enculcates virtue & morals in the populace"
Post a Comment
<< Home