- The Annihilation of Marriage-Part One
- The Annihilation of Marriage- Part Two
- Legalizing homosexual marriage impairs unalienable right
- Scalia Indicts Windsor Decision’s Intentional Bias
- Scalia’s Windsor dissent: Deficient in principle?
- U.S. Judge discards unalienable right of marriage
- Liz vs. Mary: How Both Cheneys Mistake the “Gay Marriage” Issue
- The flaw of Judge Allen’s precluded muddle
- Enslaved by mammon: Brewer, GOP elitists abandon unalienable right
- The elitists’ war on human nature
- Family ties and the natural basis for property
- Legally Institutionalizing homosexuality threatens America’s rights and liberty
In its opinion contending that homosexuals may have an equal right to marry, the Iowa Supreme court takes the position that the understanding of equal rights evolves. Rights are therefore artificial constructs that reflect changing societal norms. Even if this contention were true, it would not explain how, in a society based on the sovereignty of the people, the task of changing the laws to reflect that evolution falls to the judicial branch of government, which has no lawmaking power. Why is it rational to conclude that a handful of judges catering to the feelings of a small minority of the people reflect changed norms more accurately than the elected representatives of the people?
Of course, the court’s opinion purports to respond using the argument that, with respect to the unalienable rights of their humanity, even a small minority of the people may claim protection against the unjust will of the majority. This correct reasoning was the basis for overturning laws that established racial discrimination. But the concept of unalienable human rights relies upon an understanding of right or justice promulgated by a permanent authority existing beyond human power or agreement, and therefore beyond changing societal norms. So the doctrine that rights are evolving artificial constructs, which the court cites to justify the homosexuals’ equal right to marry, contradicts the doctrine of unalienable rights on which it relies to justify its rejection of the existing marriage laws properly enacted by the State legislature. The court’s opinion treats unalienable rights as if they are merely conventional (that is, based on changeable human agreement), but then purports to defend them against existing law (which reflects the prevalent conventional opinion of the people of Iowa) as if they are not. In order properly to defend the claim that homosexuals have an unalienable right to marry equal to that of heterosexual couples, the court would have to show that they are in some fashion inextricably involved with the preservation of human existence or identity, understood without reference to conventional views. The Iowa court’s opinion fails even to address this logical requirement. It therefore falls prey to absurd self-contradiction.
What the Iowa court fails to do with respect to artificially construed homosexual marriage rights can easily be done when we turn away from artificial fabrications to the simple facts of nature. The preservation of humanity depends upon procreation. Procreation cannot take place without the presence and participation of male and female elements of humanity. It is right to preserve humanity. Those who act with respect for this right have the right to do so. Society establishes the institution of marriage to acknowledge and codify its respect for this right and the subsidiary rights that flow from it (e.g., the authority of parents over their children, the nature and duration of the subordination of children to this authority, the obligations of parents toward their children, etc.).
Because the preservation of the species is self-evidently an aspect of preserving the existence and identity of all the individuals that comprise it, the right connected with procreation is an unalienable right. Any society that fails, in its institution of government, to respect this right, departs from the standard of justice that determines the purpose of that institution. (“To secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….”) But since justice is the end or aim of civil society, such a society also violates the understanding on which civil society itself is based. Respect for justice compels the individuals thereby deprived of their right (i.e., their opportunity to do what is right) to disregard and resist this violation, and to continue in their right course of action. If force is used to impose it, the right of self-preservation requires that they resist, so that civil society gives way to war and conflict.
It turns out that, while speciously claiming to defend the fabricated rights of homosexual individuals the Iowa supreme court opinion violates the most fundamental right of society (civil peace secured by respect for unalienable right), as well as one of the most obvious rights of all individuals (the right to do what preserves humanity.) The judges camouflage this egregious and ultimately violent abandonment of right with a discussion that dwells on the incidental feelings and emotions of homosexuals while ignoring the disposition and inclinations of humanity in general. But in so doing, they casually perpetrate an atrocious violation of individual rights as well.
Every child conceived and born in the context of a homosexual “marriage” represents a biological parent cut off from the opportunity to do what is right by his or her offspring. The relation between parent and child is the natural paradigm of all belonging. On account of a fact that in no way depends on human power or agreement, the child belongs to the parent and the parent to the child. The fabrication of homosexual marriage casually deprives both parent and child of this natural belonging, perpetrating a criminal theft that strikes not only at individuals, but at the very concept of ownership (and therefore of property) for which their mutual belonging provides the natural pattern.
The fabrication of homosexual marriage thus represents an assault against the conceptual basis of the rights of property. If, on account of the bond derived from the production of life itself, there arises no unalienable right of belonging, what other form of labor or production can give rise to such a right? This means that the right of property must be regarded as purely conventional, subject to the imposition of whatever happens to be the prevalent force of opinion at the moment. But if individuals have no belongings beyond determination by this human force, what becomes of their claim to possess unalienable rights that that must be respected by human laws and governments?
In light of these reflections we realize that it is no accident that the definitive push to impose homosexual marriage takes place in the context of a general effort to overthrow the institutions of individual liberty, limited government and the private enterprise economy. The natural family is the conceptual and material basis for the possibility of a human community that respects individual belongings. In order to establish a thoroughly collectivist and socialist regime, it must be completely discarded and destroyed. It must be annihilated. The fabrication of homosexual marriage thus appears as part of the more general war against liberty that is now coming to a head. Once we realize this, we understand the inadequacy of the strategy and tactics employed until now by those who profess to defend the natural family against this fabrication. In the next posting I will discuss their shortcomings, and the remedy for them.
I hate to say this, but nothing puts the lie to the idea that homosexuals are “born that way” like the success of conversion efforts aimed at the families of prominent Americans. I dislike saying it because any injury is worsened by the knowledge that it was inflicted intentionally, and losing one’s children is already among the worst of injuries. To realize that your child was targeted as a means for your enemies to attack you is a terrible experience, and I wish it could be avoided.
Do those who mouth such a villainous line have any ability to understand how starkly they portray evil? Not only to snare the child, but then to boast of the deed? Well, laugh while you may, servant of the adversary. It might be better for you to repent before the day of judgment, but I cannot hope for it.
The argument is sometimes made that the promotion of homosexuality will not have the more general effect of encouraging more children to be led into its destructive grip. Even were this true it would make a rather poor argument in favor of uprooting every social institution which seeks to maintain some level of decency and morality in society. But those who advance it know well that it is false, and they make deliberate use of their expert knowledge of how best to entrap impressionable youth in perversions.
All have fallen, all are lost. That soul which is willing to take the Lord’s outstretched hand will find the power to leave sin behind. He who–alone among humankind–is sinless says unto all, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
What about your child, Alan?
The Silent Consensus,
“Well, yes…but it would be hard for him to come up with a plausible straw man as fun to knock down as you’ve made yourself. I realize that it’s frustrating for you to argue with people who are actually allowed to argue back, but many people actually like that aspect of free expression.” This. Unfortunately for you and your Liberal cohorts, since the internet is unregulated, and this site encourages polite debate, you will not be allowed to use the “Your Racist”, “Hate Speech” and other arguments that the Left likes to use. Your propaganda and illogical inconsistencies will be called out here, no matter how much you wish it was not so.I would say your original statement on this matter is akin to that raving you know what Perez Hilton when he verbally eviscerated Ms. California for her lack of “tolerance”…..when her views differed from hers. Your argument has no basis, neither does any other argument the radical Homosexual mafia makes. You and your peers have every right to live together, be intimate together, have a relationship…..even a civil union together. No, the issue is it infuriates you that Heterosexuals enjoy a God Sanctioned and blessed union for life, something you, your partner(s) and the rest of the Gay community, cannot, and will not ever have, because as much as it bothers you and as much as you try to bury it in your mind, your life style is a depraved, perverse spin on the natural order of things that is an abomination. No religion in the world condones or allows Homosexuality, there is a reason for this.
Well, yes…but it would be hard for him to come up with a plausible straw man as fun to knock down as you’ve made yourself. I realize that it’s frustrating for you to argue with people who are actually allowed to argue back, but many people actually like that aspect of free expression.
Don’t worry about not being able to provide reasoned responses. We can easily argue amongst ourselves about various fine points of logic, and your usual reactions are usually at least amusing. Not, perhaps, to everyone…but I have come to entertain a certain fondness for you.
Not a very moral fondness, I’ll admit. I’m not a particularly good person, after all. If I were a better man I’d probably be more concerned about your mental and spiritual welfare. I’ll make a special effort to pray for you. I’m not sure you’ll read this with gratitude, and so I assure you that none is required. I’m really only acting for the benefit of my own soul, after all. It needs the exercise.
You are a free human being, not a pet or object. I apologize for taking your fate lightly, though it is not in my nature to feel true regret or sorrow over the offense. That is a lack on my part. You need more than the linguistic acknowledgment of your individual value, and I cannot supply anything else.
If individuals are like atoms, I suppose I must be Radon. It’s rather sad that I don’t mind anymore.
You don’t need a reasoned response from me. You’re more than capable of creating your own straw men to knock down with ad hominem
Maurisa, what an excellent analogy. It is refreshing to read to the point, easy to grasp, and yet unshakable logic.
I’ve always thought of the individual, family and society in chemical terms. The individual is an atom or element. He has certain properties that are identifiable. In this sense we can think of individual rights.
The family is a molecule (a combination of individual elements). Although made of constituent atoms, the compound has completely different properties. Families are the first place most of us develop relationships and where concepts like trust, faith, sacrifice and even social contracts arise. Although this is not universally true (e.g., individuals being raised in orphanages), it is the norm. It is also inherently obvious that families were the first and basic social structure. Without a familial concept, there are no tribes, cities or states.
Nations are the crystalline structure of families. More accurately, a culture is the crystal. If you tamper with the family, it is the same as tampering with the chemical makeup of society. It will give rise to a completely different set of properties and alter the cohesion of that crystal. Progressive liberals look at our culture and despise it, seeing only every flaw and inclusion not realizing that it is precisely the Christian nature of our society that embraces freedom. Freedom allows them to act on aberrant beliefs. Instead of a crystal, they aim for a homogenous, indefinable goop that they can endlessly manipulate.
Look at dedicated atheistic or non-Christian cultures around the world and throughout history. Which ones were not oppressive? Nazi Germany? Communist Russia or China? Saudi Arabia? Try a little of your liberal agitation in any of these places and see how long you last. Admittedly Christendom doesn’t have a perfect track record, but it was Christian thought that led us out of the Dark Ages. We may have muddled our way to where we are today but we got here. I doubt that that the totalitarian views so many progressives tout or tolerate would lead to a similar state of freedom. Now that we’ve embarked upon a grand new scheme, let’s see how long we’ll last.
Authentic freedom is not in their lexicon. If it were, why so many judicial decrees that clearly countermand the clear language of law and the obvious wishes of our society?
(1) Homosexuals haven’t the same capacity for maintaining successful marriage relationships as heterosexuals do. In point of fact they have NO capacity for doing so.
(2) Rogue “courts” like the one in question, as well as the CA Supreme Court, et al, understand this basic truth and seek to find a way around it and to legitimize their illegitimate rulings. Hence,
(3) these rogues (who ought to be summarily removed and then flogged for their attempts to destroy the basis of society and societal order) who sit on these courts undermine the whole concept of marriage and thus work to destroy it (and thus the basis of society) by redefining the terms and conditions normally associated with the sacred marriage covenant for the sake of an insignificant (albeit loud and radical) minority of the common citizenry, to wit:
…The ability of an individual to join in a committed, long-term, officially recognized family relationship with the person of his or her choice is often of crucial significance to the individual’s happiness and well-being. The legal commitment to long-term mutual emotional and economic support that is an integral part of an officially recognized marriage relationship provides an individual with the ability to invest in and rely upon a loving relationship with another adult in a way that may be crucial to the individual’s development as a person and achievement of his or her full potential.Thus sayeth the Court.
Twice in a single paragraph the insane CA Supreme court redefines the conditions of marriage to be a “long term” relationship between consenting adults rather than the lifelong committment that marriage actually is. Then the court engages itself in purposeful ambiguity when it comes to what the term long-term actually means. Does it mean a year, two years, five years … what?
Ans: It means any of the above and more. In other words, the term is simply meaningless for all intents and purposes, and so is marriage rendered meaningless by use of such terms to describe it, its purpose and conditions.
I wouldn’t wish to disparage the importance of property, I only wish to point out that it is not the true target of progressive assault. The ability to have properties, meaning attributes which appertain to the individual (including attributes of ownership), is essential to liberty. And the state control necessarily seeks to turn the general population into an indistinguishable mass, so removing the distinctive attributes of the individual is certainly part of what the statist must attempt.
But we leave ourselves poorly armed to combat the enemy if we fail to understand why the progressive seeks something so morally and pragmatically unsound. If state control of all wealth were practical, the argument over the moral rights of individuals to have property might be relevant. But every experiment in state control of either consumables or capital, let alone both, has led to inevitable economic ruin. Were the statist to really entertain a ‘prudential’ view of property, no statist would recommend socialism, as it is obviously imprudent.
That being the case, opposition to socialistic plans is frequently based on appeal to the evidence that it doesn’t work. Yet the socialists simply claim, contrary to all existing evidence, that it will work in the future. So there is certainly a need for an argument that addresses the question at a deeper level than that of pragmatism.
But the natural right of property is not that level. As I mention before, even without a belief in such a right, the obvious historical evidence that private property leads to a more powerful state would fully convince the statist to fully support the practice, even without believing in the right. Understanding the nature and role of property rights does not help us to understand the motive of the statist in attempting to abolish it.
In truth, the statist doesn’t want to abolish property so much as redefine it as an attribute which appertains to the person wielding the government’s authority in an official capacity (rather than as a citizen). We might be tempted to think simple greed (combined with excessive optimism) was the motivation of the socialist.
Such may indeed be the motive of some of the deluded masses who subscribe to progressive agendas. But the core driving forces behind the progressive agenda do not really care about property at all. They wish to disparage responsibility, that particular connection which ties an individual to the natural consequences of self-chosen actions.
More to the point, it is easier to understand the ‘moral’ agenda of socialism in light of this more basic motivation. The argument that connects marriage in the Western tradition with property rights is sound as far as it goes, but the connection to responsibility for one’s actions is far more evident and also happens to be the true reason that progressives want to destroy the institution of marriage.
This is also behind all the attempts to remove from the law any sense of moral judgment (whereas establishing a body of moral judgments too important for the body of the community to permit their transgression is the entire function of the law). Progressives naturally identify with the criminal, not the victim. As they transform the law to establish new criteria for being made a criminal, we can detect their ideal coming into being. The old-fashioned criminal was being held accountable for actions which hurt an innocent victim. The new criminal, defined by the progressive agenda, is that person who seeks to hold others accountable for immoral actions.
Naturally, they seek to set up a system in which they will control the maximal arbitrary authority under the guise of “the state”, while being immune to any sense of personal responsibility for what they do. Thus destroying all mechanisms which tend to hold government accountable (opposition parties, citizen initiatives, private ownership rights, an armed populace, etc.) come under unrelenting assault. But this would not suffice to fully explain the push to destroy the institution of marriage. They want to destroy marriage for the same reason they wish to destroy morality generally. It is not because the institution of marriage gives women an alternative to helpless dependence on the state (though it does), or because morality gives the people a basis for resistance to unjust laws (though this is true as well). It is because morality makes them responsible for their own actions.
And this they are unwilling to accept.
I’ve been meaning to ask you regarding this outrageous discrimination and slanderous attack at Miss California for speaking out, not only the TRUTH, but exercising her 1st Amendment rights to do so!
Now recently Keith Olberman of MSNBC smear network was on air clearly “slandering” Miss California calling her “dumb” and “stupid” and many of those types why having on another guest who clearly “slandered” her on national tv.
Dr Keyes, is there any way that you can get involved in this and use this as an opportunity to file a lawsuit against Keith Olberman and MSNBC for “slander”?
If what Olberman was saying isn’t defined as slander, what is?
Would you please look into this? Thanks
God bless you Ambassador.
Silent Consensus, you’re clearly not very bright. Either that or you’re a liar, because this has been explained to you several times, not least in the article we are now discussing. Yet you cling to your idiotic claim that marriage is simply concerned with “love” and “commitment.”
It is not. Marriage is ordered toward procreation. That is clearly why our laws have always abetted marriage. I mean, seriously, what possible interest could the state have in promoting a loving relationship between two people simply for the sake of them having a loving relationship? Such a claim is absurd on its face. Next you’ll be advocating a program to send Valentine’s Day cards to “loving couples” at taxpayer expense.
“If marriage is…an institution government should be involved in, then government should do so following the principle of equal treatment under the law.”
The government DOES adhere to that principle. Gay men and gay women are perfectly free to marry each other. To claim that if two men or two women aren’t free to marry, that that constitutes a violation of the equal protection clause, is to claim that it is equally a violation for a man and an infant, or the sixteen members of your local bridge club, to be prohibited from forming a marriage. There is no rational basis for any distinction between qualities or numbers of people involved if marriage can mean any old thing you want it to…but then rationality doesn’t seem to be particularly high on your list of priorities.
“Love and commitment are sacred in America,”
Please excuse me while I laugh in your face. You can’t even be consistent in your insanity. On the one hand you want to play the “separation of church and state” card. On the other you want to babble on about things being “sacred” in America. And this is not even to mention the substantive stupidity of the statement.
“…and you have no right to stop any two consenting adults from being in a loving relationship.”
Ok, this is the last straw. Please provide evidence of the squads of Love Police patrolling our streets, looking for people with hearts, birds and butterflies floating above their heads to arrest.
On the other hand, if you’re serious that “loving relationships” are only those relationships which are sanctioned by the government, then the normal libertine demand that government keep its nose out of all loving relationships makes no sense whatsoever. You guys will at some point need to decide which position you actually hold. Or does that depend upon the day of the week?
Here’s my thoughts, for what they’re worth. The “Gay Rights” agenda is not the problem. It’s a symptom of the underlying disease. The same disease that allows women to murder their children in the name of choice, and give equal footing to Terrorists and Marxist dictators with our own President(allegidly).
Moral Relativism and Political Correctness. We as Conservatives get side tracked onto individual issues and miss the picture for the details. The problem is, and I’ve yet to see very many people address this, that we, our God given liberties, social institutions and the Judeo-Christian foundations of this nation have had open war declared on it.
Most people still see this as a political struggle and I submit that although it does have a political front to the fight, it is more of a spiritual/social fight.
I am a strong supporter of Dr. Keyes, but I believe that we must get organized for a stronger front. I have chosen the Active organization to make a stand from. Their site is http://accdf.com . I ask that you all visit there and at the very least check them out.
God bless you Dr. Keyes and keep you. I hope that you are able to continue in your struggle for America’s soul.
Chiu-chunling; Alan is correct in using – Property.
My Friend Michael G. said this.
What is “Property”?
We’ve been having an interesting discussion over a number of years with a traditional academic (an economist), who has had difficulties understanding some of the principles underlying Louis Kelso’s binary economics. After some back and forth, we discovered that this economist — in common with many other economists, and even lawyers — wasn’t clear on the meaning of “private property,” a cornerstone not only of binary economics, but the entire social order (repeat) The entire social order. This economist has the fixed belief that private property does not come under the virtue of justice, but of prudence, that is, whether people are allowed to own is up to society to determine, usually in the person of the State.
Since we’re discussing binary economics, let’s begin with Kelso’s definition of property.
Property is an aggregate of the rights, powers and privileges, recognized by the laws of the nation, which an individual may possess with respect to various objects. Property is not the object owned, but the sum total of the “rights” which an individual may “own” in such an object. These in general include the rights of (1) possessing, (2) excluding others, (3) disposing or transferring, (4) using, (5) enjoying the fruits, profits, product or increase, and (6) destroying or injuring, if the owner so desires. In a civilized society, these rights are only as effective as the laws which provide for their enforcement. English common law, adopted into the fabric of American law, recognizes that the rights of property are subject to the limitations that (1) things owned may not be so used as to injure others or the property of others, and (2) they may not be used in ways contrary to the general welfare of the people as a whole. From this definition of private property, a purely functional and practical understanding of the nature of property becomes clear. Property in everyday life is the right of control.
From this understanding of private property within the structure of human law, we go to the institution as part of the natural law. As the universal prohibition against theft of the “fruits, profits, product or increase” from what one owns (i.e., both one’s body and one’s non-human assets) demonstrates (and the popes have taught), the right to be an owner is part of the natural law. As Dr. Heinrich Rommen, one of Germany’s premier jurists before escaping from the Nazis, a student of Father Heinrich Pesch, and a member of the Königswinterkreis (which also included Father Oswald von Nel Breuning, Gustav Gundlach, Franz Müller, and Goetz Briefs), noted,
“Thou shalt not steal” presupposes the institution of private property as pertaining to the natural law; but not, for example, the feudal property arrangements of the Middle Ages or the modern capitalist system. Since the natural law lays down general norms only, it is the function of the positive law to undertake the concrete, detailed regulation of real and personal property and to prescribe the formalities for conveyance of ownership. (The Natural Law, 1947.)
Here we have the basis for understanding why, if private property is “prudential matter,” property becomes merely a grant to be given or revoked by society in the person of the State. This necessarily grants overwhelming power to the State, and concentrates that power in the hands of the few rather than the many. Property becomes not private, but a public good subject to centralized administration by the State, granted to individuals or groups, and revoked at will, employed by an elite to gain and maintain control over others, thereby offending against others’ human dignity.
Property is important because, except for human labor itself, nothing connects a person to the common good in a more intimate or secure fashion. By denying (abolishing) private property, the human person is cut off from the “ability for doing” that property confers, that is, “power.” Without property, the human person is dependent on whoever possesses property, and is subject to control, more or less complete, depending on the will of whoever owns. Worse, without power, the human person is unable to exercise his or her capacity to acquire and develop virtue (“pursue happiness”), and thereby develop more fully as a human being. When power is centralized in the State, as happens when private property is abolished, persons become “mere creatures of the State,” to be controlled, used, or disposed of as the State sees fit.
This is because property is not the thing owned, but the set of social relationships that define how an “owner” relates to the thing owned, and to other people with respect to the thing owned. Property confers power because in all codes of law property is the right of control. When control or the right to the enjoyment of the fruits of ownership (income) are taken away, property is abolished.
Being based securely on widespread private property in the means of production — and thus on the natural law — CESJ’s Just Third Way provides a blueprint for restructuring the social order in conformity with humanity’s true nature, consistent with the natural law, and thus God’s divine Nature, on which (in Thomist philosophy) the natural law is based. That being the case, the Just Third Way and Kelso’s binary theory of economics are not only consistent with the natural law that provides the basis for every justly-structured society and economy, they offer the most effective means to empower people economically to both just wages and just profits.
* * *
And finally, I may agree with ‘The Silent Consensus’ for in 1535, someone lost his head for not sacrificing his definition of the Church to have absolute autonomy in the matter of Marriage (Thomas More). And it’s been on the ‘States’ Alter ever since to be sacrificed at the next whim and the next and the next. The ‘State’ has no “property’ in this Holy Sacrament. (Period).
Marriage is an irrevocable “trust”.
From(1535)that point forward, everything the State does has been defined and justified as ‘civil’. And that’s a topic for another discussion.
Just a nail in the wall.
More of Michael’s writing at http://just3rdway.blogspot.com/
So are you saying that procreation is a human duty?
If marriage is a religious institution, then the government should stay out of the issue and leave it to religious institutions. Let’s divorce marriage and government, and have government recognize partnerships as civil unions. If marriage is not a religious institution, and is an institution government should be involved in, then government should do so following the principle of equal treatment under the law
If two people are happy with someone of the same sex, and if you don’t want to help that, if you don’t want to fight for it, and if you don’t want to facilitate it, then don’t. No one is making you. But don’t force your demands on everyone else. Love and commitment are sacred in America, and you have no right to stop any two consenting adults from being in a loving relationship. You can speak against it, and you can persuade against it, you just can’t forcibly stop it!
I’m not one to read essays on reason or dissolution of simple truths. Reading paragraphs and excerpts of this and the previous post provide plenty of provocative phrases, words, and ideas. Although I do much agree, I could never get caught up in the swells of details that complicate proclivity.
The world we Americans live in, with all its supposed depth and width, to me, seems much more simple to navigate than at any point in my life before. We have a number of givens which are relentlessly tossed around by insatiable leftists. Never mind the well calculated assumptions by which we all, including the mud slinging pro-homosexual tyrants, are able to move through life. I stand on the outside of the chaos in grief that it has come to this. We have to waste our talents on the costly advance of socialism in order to fight the threat against true wealth.
Take it or leave it, the real issue is relevance. I am going to offer some simple ideas which should suffice the arguments of homosexual marriage and general homosexual angst against seemingly the rest of the world. I obviously will not submit them all but here is a sample:
Without the gaping flaw of homosexuality, where would the rest of us be? Does anyone think the world would be worse off?
With homosexuality being the great choice that it is, what would happen if we all chose it? You do not even have to answer that one.
What is it that the rabid homosexuals really want? I should clarify that many homosexuals I have known couldn’t care less about marriage.
They want the same thing we ALL want. The difference is, we do what it takes to obtain it and it can only be futilely offered to them. It is called RELEVANCE. Sure, they can contribute materially like the rest of us. Sometimes they can even materially exceed their own cost economically speaking. As the relation to human existence goes, the little fire they light goes out when they take their last breath. My fire, with seven children by September, will soon rage and afford social costs associated with socialistic or non-generational thinking. I can go on but I’ll leave it there for now.
I believe that the opportunity to bring forth children and raise them in accordance with God’s plan of individual development is a great blessing. But I cannot believe that God’s plan could be thwarted by the obstinance of a given generation. Christ said, “I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Just as, in the beginning, God formed man from the dust. Literalism aside, it is certainly possible for a new sentient race to arise to replace one that has, through error or unworthiness, passed into extinction. Whatever one might believe about the particulars of human origin, there is no fundamental reason to believe a similarly intelligent species could never arise again.
Certainly, from a human perspective, it is better for this species to continue. It would be a folly to forsake the wonderful experience of raising children in love, simply because God commands it for our benefit rather than His own convenience. But let us not deceive ourselves from thinking that the continued generations of humanity do us any good if mankind’s posterity has no connection to God.
Each of us, individually, hope to return to God. This is eternal life, not the propagation of flesh like ourselves on the Earth. The good of rearing children is that it schools us in that love which rejoices in the joy of another. And rearing children well is not a matter of providing means for them to procreate efficiently, but for them to follow the path which leads to acknowledging and loving their Creator as their divine Father.
It is true that the blessings which God offers us can only be appreciated when we have developed our sentience through careful obedience to laws which we may not initially understand except as ‘obligation’. Just as the novice gardener may not appreciate the rich variety of experience to be found in the earth that brings forth fruit, but will eventually learn to perceive the marvelous qualities of the soil by working it fruitfully. The young scholar learning a difficult lexicon, sculptor dealing with stone, even poets learning about the rhythm and cadence of their native tongues. To expand our capacity for enjoyment of anything, we must sometimes practice what we have not yet learned to enjoy.
So it is proper to speak of duty and obligation. But let us not forget what defines an action we may not now enjoy as duty rather than meaningless toil or self-abuse. It is the expectation of the reward which we trust to be inextricably connected with that action. In raising up the next generation, let us not mistake the true purpose. It is not for the sake of continuing the species, but so that we may experience parental love.
The tragic limitations of human philosophy working through only reason and current experience can never hope to discover what lies beyond the endurance of any particular form of suffering except by experiment. Yet to try out each kind of perceived evil, in the hope of thus discovering good, is unendurable (if it is even survivable). Such is the grace of God, to command of us that we attempt those duties which He already knows to be for our future enjoyment.
We, having the advantage of history and biography from which to learn about previous generations, can in some measure use reason upon experiences which are not yet our own. Thus we may proceed based on their experience in following revelations which were not given directly to our minds. And, sadly, often the fate of those who did not obey God.
I admit to being a recalcitrant student of God’s commands. Many proofs of their benevolence notwithstanding, I habitually look for the possibility that one or another might not be my cup of tea. Thus far my cynicism is disappointed, but it has yet to be fully reproved. Probably I will always remain naturally skeptical. But, that very nature makes me even more wary of more fallible sources of wisdom. Human philosophies are interesting, but not very reliable guides.
Sounds like the end of something, and probably not mankind, but just the United States of America, or certainly specific elements therein. When we start replacing laws based on natual law (God’s law) with man’s law, somethings got to give.
Yes. The current trend appears to be heading towards the end of all natural God given rights. However, I believe that God’s law will prevail, and that those who promote and support the rejection of natural law will perish. That’s one of the tenents of natural law (if you play with fire, you’ll get burned).
We shall see in time, whose law will prevail, and to what end man’s usurpation of that law will meet.
Except we mistake ourselves for the Creator, our reasoning about unalienable rights is not a matter of choice, but of observation. In the discussion of unalienable rights I do not use the term “freedom”, because as such the ground of unalienable right is not choice but obligation. In this sense, right precedes responsibility, since it precisely involves the push or pull (arising from our nature and ultimately reflecting the determination of the Creator) to which our right action is the appropriate response.
The problem with most thinking about rights these days is exactly this tendency to treat everything as a matter of choice. This leads to problematic statements like this one “If nobody wanted to reproduce, then lack of reproduction would not diminish individual freedom.” Non-existence (the necessary consequence of the a universal failure in the will to reproduce)doesn’t just diminish individual freedom, it eliminates the very possibility of such freedom.
When thinking about the prerequisites of individual existence, it makes no sense to take it for granted that individuals will continue to exist when those prerequisites are not met. The concept of right is derived by a process of reasoning from just such logical and existential necessities. In the development of the theory of natural law, for example, the political theorists began by reasoning from the prerequisites of individual existence. They therefore formulated the first law of nature in terms of self-preservation, including of course the preservation of the specific (species related) aspect of individuality that reflects our humanity.
I would replace the term “property” with the more encompassing and fundamental concept of responsibility. It is the ability to choose a course of action based on the definite consequences to which it leads which defines freedom. Choices deprived of understanding of the consequences are no more freedom than is knowledge of inevitable outcomes regardless of choice.
Certainly, the forces that have converged to promote the redefinition of marriage are associated with the attempt to deprive individuals of the desired fruits of their own labor. But they are also aligned with the effort to remove the undesirable consequences from criminal and wanton behaviors. Their aim isn’t really something so simple as favoring certain classes of persons at the expense of all others. It is a coordinated assault on the very concept of personal ownership of the results of one’s freely chosen actions.
I would thus not base the inalienability of reproductive rights on the necessity of preserving the species. The only reason that the preservation of the species matters is because of the love that those now living have for their posterity. If nobody wanted to reproduce, then lack of reproduction would not diminish individual freedom. The existence of individuals is only preserved through their children in the sense that the children are a result of the will exercised to bear and raise them. Mere propagation of the genetic material, without reference to the aspirations of individual choices, does not reflect any essential good of the individual beyond the satisfaction of merely animal instinct.
The structure of a committed marriage between man and woman is the ideal arrangement for allowing the parents of children to involve themselves fully in the process, beginning with choice of a reproductive partner, which brings up the particular children of those parents in the context of their choices. It provides the opportunity for parents to be as responsible as possible for the upbringing of their own children. And thus every aspect of this arrangement has been attacked with the specific aim of removing from the parents natural responsibility for raising their children and replacing it with the insupportable onus of their children qua separate individuals.
Homosexuals seek escape from the natural consequences of their own behavior. But further than this, those who use them seek to create “families” in which those who raise children can be plausibly granted their entire relationship by the superior authority of the state. Thus the state will be the final holder of all responsibility for, and ownership (it its most brutishly possessive sense) of, the children. By asserting that the male or female is interchangeable in marriage, the individual parent becomes interchangeable as well, as do the children. This constitutes the justification for the state’s authority to arbitrarily decide, without reference to the actions of the principles, whether any individuals have the relationship of parent and child. Instead of protecting children from the arbitrary power of adults who did not bear or rear them, the state will do just the opposite (as it has already begun).
Homosexual ‘marriage’ is almost tangential to this agenda. The more important drive of redefining ‘marriage’ is ultimately to deny women (as individuals and as a class) the benefits of marriage. Marriage allows women (individually and collectively) to call upon the strengths of men while directing their aggressive tendencies away from destructive activity and towards defense and husbandry of the family and society. Homosexual ‘marriage’ cannot provide these benefits even in theory. In a society without marriage, women will be at the mercy of men generally, and this situation is desirable to the progressive both because it directly diminishes real freedom of individuals and because it serves as a convenient pretext for making the state ‘responsible’ for ‘protecting’ women.
Nothing now prevents even the most avowedly homosexual from participating in all socially essential aspects of genuine marriage, technology even provides means for children to be conceived without direct sexual contact between the parents. Only the (admittedly profound) satisfaction of a committed sexual relationship with a chosen partner in creating a family will be lacking. But of course homosexual men do not want to be made husbands to the interests of women. Most men require considerable inducement to make that choice.
In a broader sense, this throws light on the question of how any less physically, economically, or socially powerful segment of the population is to preserve their own interests against disparagement by the more powerful. The Civil Rights movement was not peculiar to members of racial minorities, any more than the war to end slavery was fought on an entirely racial basis. Were it not so, the decisions of a few judges could have had no more long term effect in the direction of Civil Rights than the decisions of opposing judges or the vaporings of undecided beggars.
What then, persuaded the majority to look upon the claims of the minority as being legitimate? There are various answers, which hold true to varying degrees for different persons. Abolitionists had always argued that there was no justice in the practice of slavery, and there had always been some element of racial equality in those arguments (more particularly in the earliest days). Thus the simple evidence that the minority shared human attributes with the majority, particularly language and religion, motivated individual members of the majority to disparage inequity in their treatment.
This thread of development continued and was amplified in the later development of the push for Civil Rights. The majority was never convinced by the simple fact of inequality that such inequality was unjust, but by the evidence that the behavior of the minority was deserving of equality before the law. This is consonant with the way that exposure to healthy marriage, in which the wife is an essential contributor of the husband’s welfare and happiness, teaches men that women deserve respect. The mere assertion that one deserve respect or even the repetitive demands for it have no such effect. The child may as well say “I’m not a child”, or the idiot say “I’m not stupid” (and one must note that both do so more frequently than anyone who is neither).
That judges were among those members of the majority which found racial discrimination unjust and unworthy of a free nation is true. But it was not the actions of judges which did the most to advance the cause of Civil Rights. It was not even the actions of the legislators or Presidents in passing valid laws against discrimination, nor of the majority of the majority in supporting such candidates for office and such laws. It was the actions of the minority which persuaded the majority that continued oppression would be unjust–not unsafe or impossible.
When homosexuals are willing, by their own actions, to convince the rest of the population that they are worthy of respect rather than censure, they will earn that respect. But so long as they seek to derive respect by imposture and imposition, they will never succeed in anything but destroying all respect for every institution they use in pushing forward their agenda. The edicts of a court, like the abjurations of the mass media, are only effective to the degree that people choose to heed them.
Respect for the opinions put forth through the conventional media has fallen dramatically. Respect for the authority of judges and government generally is on a matching course. Neither will be heeded much longer if this trend continues.