Tuesday, November 23, 2010

"Don’t Blame the Gay Lobby for the Decline of Marriage"

"Defenders of marriage must face some hard facts or they are going to lose their fight—and with it, quite possibly, their religious freedom as well," begins Stephen Baskerville — Divorced From Reality. The first and most important of the "hard facts" he presents:
    Marriage exists primarily to cement the father to the family. This fact is politically incorrect but undeniable. The breakdown of marriage produces widespread fatherlessness, not motherlessness. As Margaret Mead pointed out long ago—yes, leftist Margaret Mead was correct about this—motherhood is a biological certainty whereas fatherhood is socially constructed. The father is the weakest link in the family bond, and without the institution of marriage he is easily discarded.

    The consequences of failing to link men to their offspring are apparent the world over. From our inner cities and Native American reservations to the north of England, the banlieues of Paris, and much of Africa, fatherlessness—not poverty or race—is the leading predictor of virtually every social pathology among the young. Without fathers, adolescents run wild, and society descends into chaos.

    The notion that marriage exists for love or “to express and safeguard an emotional union of adults,” as one proponent puts it, is cant. Many loving and emotional human relationships do not involve marriage. Even the conservative argument that marriage exists to rear children is too imprecise: marriage creates fatherhood. No marriage, no fathers.
"Once this principle is recognized, same-sex marriage makes no sense," he says, before going on to argue that "homosexuals did not destroy marriage, heterosexuals did," that "divorce is a political problem, ... not a private matter, and it does not come from impersonal forces of moral and cultural decay," and, finally, that "marriage is not entirely a public institution that government may legitimately define and regulate." Tolle, lege.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kant of all people once defined marriage as a contract between a man and a woman for use/ownership of each other's genitals. Perhaps it is divergent from the definition in this link, but equally unromantic. Hegel was horrified by this definition, perferring the mutual love blah, blah, blah. It's nice to marry your best friend, but it is by no means a prerequisite.

11:07 AM  
Blogger The Western Confucian said...

Most Asians realize that love is more than just an emotion; it's an act of the will.

1:07 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Omnes Sancti et Sanctæ Coreæ, orate pro nobis.